>>2509192
Player count status?

>>2509192
i believe post beta 1.4 will be good
i believe across the pillars will be a good and successful dlc
i believe 2.0 will completely fix the game

>>2509201
Only 5 more years until 2.0

>>2509203
cope, they already said mid 2027

>>2509201
>i believe post beta 1.4 will be good
Agree, is just hilarious that by this point it won't fix >>2509200
>i believe across the pillars will be a good and successful dlc
If you buy another DLC after the travesty that was the first scam you are a retard.
>i believe 2.0 will completely fix the game
We said this about 1.1

>>2509226
What exactly was wrong with the first DLC? People wanted Romeslop, they got Romeslop. It's no more or less broken than the rest of the game.

i prefer victoria 3 combat to having to micro stacks

>>2509228
Combat is shit precisely because heavy cav is STILL op as fuck.
They added a whole combined arms system, flanks, all for 99% of units not to matter.

>>2509201
If anything the new roadmad means they are really scaling down the ambitions they had with the live-service.
I would tell you I won't be surprised if they axe the whole project in the second half of 2027, but Victoria 3 looked even worse and it's still chugging along somehow. Even with that in mind I don't see anybody coming back to play the game in the future.

>>2509192
>Trade range bug (supposedly) fixed, but nobody actually plays the game so we just don't know
Hello, game playerer here. It's """""fixed""""" in that that the calculations exist now and are correct, however trade range stacks up so high now that by the third age it stops mattering. If you are playing as portugal for example, you don't actually have to colonize the spice islands. Simply discover them and you have enough range to ship directly to Lisbon (or the whole rest of the world) Having ports along the way doesn't matter or help, the intermediate markets don't do anything. You theoretically pay more trade capacity but it's not much.

paradox should just give up on autism slop and make more normie hoi4 clones

>>2509262
Why even change it? That's what I don't get.

>>2509257
I don't see why you think heavy cavalry can't simply be hired. The real reason countries didn't run around with bunch of heavy cavalry all the time in the early period of the game is because they were poor as shit not because heavy cavalry has some magical nobles only unlock condition. In the video game version of history where everything works on space communism logic obviously you need to be able to hire heavy cavalry.

>>2509263
It's probably a combination of them redoing all the portraits to make their art styles match and to enable all the new portrait scaling things they needed for the DLC, the colors and eyes in particular being messed up and it being a direct copy of a propaganda poster which may conflict with german laws in particular. Mostly the first one though. Honestly pretty stupid thing to seethe about.

>>2509283
>Space communism logic should be removed
It's a video game, you need to be able to do things, which requires you to have money.

>>2509229
light cav is better than heavy cav. heavy cav can beat light cav but light cav beats all AI armies so light cav is enough, it's cheaper. Try the all light cav stack, it just werks

>>2509259
Playing Spain in a game that starts in 1836 sounds about as interesting as playing muscovy in a game that starts in 1337.

>Still play 1.0.10
>Vibe code mods as I see fit
>Great experience so far

>>2509308
>collapsed loser empire that stands zero chance of victory without alt-history copium
I dunno, Germany is the most played country in HOI4, and Byzantium is up there in EU4. It's a pretty popular archetype

>>2509309
Those are called "updates" Johan you are pushing them to main we have all been forced to install them this whole time please take your pills

>>2509257
Nah, guns should be OP.
As soon as guns were commonplace cavalry was more for noncombat stuff (still important), to the point that they gave up on wearing armor.

>>2509312
And honestly, infantry was starting to outdo cavalry in importance even before that.

>>2509308
Muscovy is great in 1337 because you get to fight to restore order in the thunderdome of east europe. imo it's why hungary, novgorod, poland, lithuania and crimea are all GReAT picks in eu4 and eu5.
Spain is terrible in 1836, unlike muscovy in 1337 or 1444. But the mod in question it's not a mod that fixes spain for players, it's for the AI, and it's needed because of an issue where wargoals just expire and gbo away causing every civil war (including the spanish civil war at game start) to end in white peace.

>>2509309
Oh shit seriously, you're even doing the same version as me? Damn. I wish I had the tokens for that lol. I'm just making my modifications by hand, painstakingly, and I fucking suck at it. Better than a billion dollar company though so I guess I'm a 7 figure salary dev at heart.

>>2509312
>>2509314
Hey bro if you want to talk about march of the eagles go make your own thread. This is the eu5 general, okay napolean? Btw france losted (bigly) and the louvre is burning right now.

>>2509319
It's just gsg leaking again

>>2509259
>>2509258
seems to be like paradox just tried to chew more than they can eat with victora 3 and eu5, both have the most "in depth" economic systems of any paradox game, but that makes them really hard to balance and it's hard to make the AI properly function

i hope the silk and silver expansion will be good, it's a bit more in depth than usual but not too much, that's probably what paradox should have gone for

File: 1792357771307001.png (867 KB, 1328x743)

867 KB PNG

>A Toast! To the gamers who stuck with us through this difficult year.

File: {BAE3AB37-998D-486D-9D6A-(...).png (2.36 MB, 1920x1080)

2.36 MB PNG

>eu5 is a simulation

>>2509308
hello lord lambert

>>2509319
Cavalry got owned by longbows in the HYW, by crossbows and guns in the Hussite wars, and by pikes in the renaissance. If you want a historical power spread then heavy cav should not be at the top for long at all. I have to imagine that's why they even put in the combined arms system, because that's what armies did.

>>2509372
England and Bohemia lost those wars

>>2509389
Bohemia won those wars, started to raid external countries, and then surrendered after a separate civil war with no outside involvement. The HYW you can argue about, but the English were winning until a new king took over who was so bad he caused his own civil war.

>>2509395
So they won until they lost, that's the story of every historical loser.

>>2509397
Bohemia doesn't really qualify because they didn't lose except to themselves.
The English king didn't want to fight and gave away land, so it's debatable how relevant this is to the topic of unit type strength.

>>2509401
Historical whataboutism is extremely stupid. Both of them lost fair and square, no iffs no buts. If you want to argue that "they only lost because they were retarded" you can apply the same logic in reverse too. French only lost at Agincourt because they were retarded and frankly overconfident partially because of how obviously superior their force was. Give the same army to a competent commander and French would have won with next to no casualties and whole 100 years war would have been a one sided spank over in a year. I guess "didn't want that land anyways" is good way to excuse losing though.

Jan huss won because 100 years later protestantism completely BTFO the pope

>>2509403
Again, Bohemia didn't lose the war by any metric. The HRE wanted Bohemia to denounce its heresy, but they lost every invasion attempt, mostly gave up, and accepted the terms offered by the Ultraquists who had won their civil war.
If anyone won that, it was Bohemia, by the terms of the peace. And even if they hadn't won, they certainly won against cavalry.
England also lost allies so you can argue there's more to it than that and it's not really worth it, since we're not talking about nationalism but the role of infantry, weaponry, and combined arms.

File: 1777973811926198.jpg (367 KB, 634x881)

367 KB JPG

>>2509200
>>2509192
honestly I can't imagine at this point the player count recovering in a significant way, considering how incompetent the EU5 team is
pretty sad that johan killed one of their long-running series this fast

>>2509409
>Again, Bohemia didn't lose the war by any metric
Except the part where they lost

>>2509411
In what way? The enemy armeis all retreated from Bohemia and the emperor conceded to the Hussites.

>>2509412
see
>>2509411

>>2509413
Name one thing they lost in the peace treaty.

>>2509413
see >>2509405
Imagine pretending the hussite wars weren't a long term loss for the papacy. it broke the illusion of the pope's authority, and resulted directly in martin luther, who went on to dismantle catholic dominance in europe

>>2509416
Bohemia actually lost that because they lost WW1 and WW2

Less players than vic3 is grim beyond belief

>>2509308
Muscovy is easily some of the most and only fun I've had in EU5. I don't know what Hohol fantasy you're living in where it isn't. I suppose you spend too much time dilating to play the game.

>>2509259
you greatly overestimate how many people care about beta to the point of playing them

>>2509259
>>2509262
>>2509263
>>2509265
You nigger made me look if I was in the trannie thread by mistake. Get the fuck out.

File: file.png (1.32 MB, 2509x632)

1.32 MB PNG

>>2509530

6 consecutive wars
by his own initiative
he lost them all
this doesnt stop him

>>2509443
>be me
>play Paradox games since early 2000s
>always get more than my moneys worth out of them
>play ck3 for a month, it sucks, drop it
>play Vicky 3 for a day, it sucks, maybe modders will fix it
>play eu5 for a day, ehhhh it doesn’t really suck but it’s not good, maybe if i wait X months the devs will sort it out
Johan pls I have been waiting so long, fix your shit

>>2509443
EU5 is one of those games I want to play but it gets annoying after a while so I always stop around 1500.
Shit just breaks down into tedium when you get too big. Trade orders helped that with markets at least.

>>2509475
I wish someone had told me back when I was playing HoI3, CK2, and Victoria 2 that that was the best it was ever going to get.

File: no megakyiv here.png (2.86 MB, 1920x1080)

2.86 MB PNG

>>2509510 >>2509601

I think the problem is the game is simply too granular to simulate history well.
The AI in EU4 could be tardwrangled to achieve vaguely historical outcomes, or at least somewhat believable worlds, due to the limited number of provinces. There's only so far off the rails they can go.
In EU5 due to the sheer amount of locations (and the devs refusal to give cunts railroaded cores) the map will always end up looking horrible.

If 2.0 is not the railroad patch this game is done. Ambition trees are the last hope for this game.

>>2509502
Nothing to do with granularity (except it does make some borders more jagged) and everything to do with just general aimlessness of the AI's and also the earlier starting date and hence more glup shitto tags. AI's don't aim to create sensible borders because they don't know what those are, they aim to create roughly spherical empire and then just expand randomly towards what ever empire is weak resulting in weird snakes. EU4 would suffer from this exact thing if all the mission trees were removed. When they add missions I mean ambitions back in (with a DLC tip of course) that issue will probably be resolved for the tags that get them. If there's enough major tags that get them then that allows the major tags to tard wrangle the minor tags into well shaped boxes.

They released the across the pillars OST.

Only has two good tracks, Recercada I sopra i tenori italiani:
https://youtu.be/NQSs664jH88?t=520
and Conde Claros:
https://youtu.be/NQSs664jH88?t=606

All of the Moroccan music is Afro-Moroccan, lmao. They don't have a single pure Arab/Berber song.

>>2509510
Honestly I don't even know if ambition trees will be able to fix it. Chink tags get the equivalent in 1.4 (100% AI conquer desire, whoever takes the mandate gets cores as well), and it still never reunifies.
Maybe just before it hits general intelligence and kills us all Claude will do us a solid and fix the game.

>>2509510
>EU4 would suffer from this exact thing if all the mission trees were removed.
I played thousands of hours of EU4 and have never played whatever patch added mission trees. They were absolutely not necessary. What is necessary is hard coding per-country AI goals for majors, and railroading events.

>>2509515
That's another issue with big tags, namely that being bigger doesn't make you that much stronger in this game, well at least if you are the AI. Chinese tags are all already so big that they become impotent against each other. The game doesn't have CCR or admin efficiency to speed up conquests and the CB's are all horrible so once the tag reaches the mid sized blob phase it just sits there at best fighting with other blobs with nerf bats making no progress one way or another.

>>2509525
>The game doesn't have CCR or admin efficiency to speed up conquests
That's the thing though, the Chink reunification CB has something like 99%, 95%, or 90% reduction, I forget which.
In 1.3 they reunified easily every game, I really have no idea what they fucked to cause this, the changelog doesn't mention any changes to China other than some unrelated Manchurian shit.

File: file.png (1.76 MB, 1509x1009)

1.76 MB PNG

>>2509534 >>2509536 >>2509538

>>2509472
will this fuck ever die

>>2509530
Historically lives to about 80.

>>2509530
he lives past 100 regularly
i think he made it to 102 in my last game

>>2509530
>>2509534
>>2509536
Only the good die young.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Dandolo

>>2509536
I think they added some hidden health on him or something because he used to just straight up die before the Timurid events even started a lot in earlier versions
>try to play Timurids in 1.0.x
>wondering when it actually starts
>Timur died when he was 9
>try again
>he dies when hes 12
Only got to Timurid gameplay on the third attempt.

>>2509550
it's not hidden. it's the piss heart modifier on his profile

>>2509484
>I always stop around 1500.
Its interesting to me that in both 4 and 5 the general campaign cut off point for most players is usually at around the 150 year mark. Like its true no matter how different the general game design is, what anti snowball mechanics they add, or whether the start is 1444 or 1337 its around 150 years into a campaign its always tedious to carry on because the player is now so OP and the game balance so off there's no real point continuing

>>2509564
It's why Castile as a DLC is such a piss poor choice. Castile starts stronger than every other country. If it was a Portugal colonial rework it could have been fun.

>>2509241
why have "trade range" rather than the physical endurance of your ships and their crew .....

>>2509345
To have a decent economic simulation you need to spend a LOT of time thinking it through at the beginning

>>2509566
If anything they should be doing DLC on small thirdie shitholes for "interesting" gameplay
If you want big countries to be interesting, you need to actually make the economics/internal dynamics/combat actually interesting

File: tariffs.png (527 KB, 587x607)

527 KB PNG

>>2509584 >>2509604 >>2509635

wtf is this nigga problem
fucking libtard ass
why does he hate tariffs so much

>>2509581
>being a sunni kurd

>>2509566
Still bizarre to me Portugal got basically fuck all from this dlc

>>2509584
Beyaz cüce.

File: file.png (1.85 MB, 1876x710)

1.85 MB PNG

>>2509554
indeed, except he has multiple, its +50 years total

>>2509584
what's wrong with that

>>2509595
some jeet here seethes at anyone who doesnt exclusively larp as a white man

>>2509564
I don't think it's "tedious" in EU4. Only thing that feels that way is when you have like 10 stacks of troops in Revolutions, which if you play that long it could be worse.
There's just nothing to do in EU4. By the end of the game economy is just spamming courthouses on every province all at once. So all you have to do is war, which feels meaningless when they can't really fight back.
I wouldn't describe it as tedious, more like empty. But at least the game knows it is about war and doesn't pretend to be something else.
>>2509502
>pretending this happened organically
I have not seen Qing form a single time. Europeans will also never invade India/SEA outside of a few indonesian islands, where they sometimes manage to lose the war due to being unable to fight amphibiously.
What actually happens is that Delhi and Bengal make an alliance, Vijayanagar and Jaunpur make an alliance, and it turns into a huge hugbox which destroys any non-player outsider and stays like that until the end of the game. Shun wins China 100% of the time and Jurchen tribes barely exist. Japan will have a little bit of land in Manchuria. Persia eventually gets eaten by the Ottomans. It's a 50/50 whether Siberia belongs to Shun or Russia, but Russia is a huge jobber and often loses to Poland or Ottomans. France frequently gets eaten by Spain/Austria too, and the New World will be fully colonized with at least one superpower during the 1600s, although they usually don't declare independence.

EU5 has plenty of railroading simply because countries cannot overcome their starting parameters. It's just not tuned the way you want. In EU4 sometimes Lithuania will decline the PLC, get big allies, and have a strong game. Sometimes Aragon will decline the union and become bigger than Castile, although it's rare. Sometimes Venice will randomly ally France or whatever and eat the Ottomans.
Stuff like that doesn't happen in EU5 due to a number of factors.

>>2509581
unironically though wtf is this
it's not going away even after i reset tariffs etc.
it didnt help after i went to main menu and loaded back the save file
my country also has -148 opinion of mamluks because of tariffs so i cant ally them
is this normal?
does anyone know how to fix this?

>>2509601
Factors being:
>the AI can't fight wars (maybe day ticks instead of hours will help, I dunno)
>the AI can't get mil access to help its allies or fight distant enemies in general
>even if it does get mil access it will starve or get wiped walking there by morale penalties
>Rivalries are relatively unimportant. countries largely ally by proximity instead of trying to form pseudo-coalitions to beat a stronger enemy. You do not see, for example, Bohemia win an Enforce PU war on Hungary and then get torn apart by Poland and Austria at the same time due to the AE, like can happen in EU4.
>there are very few mechanisms for countries to benefit from distant land, so while you will sometimes see countries randomly take land that makes no sense because they can, it doesn't happen often (anymore.) There's no reason why Spain would want the Netherlands or Austria would want it. They couldn't make good use of it even if they had it.
Now that the Ottomans are programmed to win the turk situation in EU5, they will never lose. If it were like this in EU4, sometimes you would see a different country win because of lucky alliances, or you would see the Ottomans get stomped as soon as they walk into the balkans.

>>2509575
I think that's what trade range is sort of supposed to be, but a better question is why trade range, colonial range, naval range, and diplomatic range are all separate things, and why trade range can be ignored and the others can't

File: 1792886991199.jpg (2.83 MB, 1893x2307)

2.83 MB JPG

>>2509581
let there be trade o algo

Playing Vietnam (I refuse to call it Đại Việt), where is the number of religious sect followers displayed?
With Eastern Buddhist religion you can promote 3 sects, and under the fervor for each of them it says number of sect followers +0.04, the description text implies this is pop-led, as in the pops themselves have subsects, but it isn't displayed anywhere. Is there a mapmode or panel I'm missing?

>>2509662
>I refuse to call it Đại Việt
Lmao
Why
Also, how are you dealing with the dire lack of iron in that area? No idea about the thing you asked, never checked the religion panel except the times the Chinese forced me into Confucianism

>>2509669
I'm still in the RGO spam phase of the game.

>>2509488
When I opened up victoria 2 for the first time someone said that to me, actually. This was in like 2014. I'm glad I listened.

>>2509389
the hyw is multiple smaller conflicts

File: {0A94E9D5-7C0C-4C31-9268-(...).png (1.58 MB, 1920x1080)

1.58 MB PNG

>get called to defend some shitter from france
<accept
>it doesnt give me war leadership immediately despite being the emperor
>have to prepare crry to take war leadership because despite being infinitely stronger only get a +5 modifier
ahhh, such flavor

Are there rape mechanics and flavor in this game?

>>2509730
yes by buying the game Johan will rape you in many ways including malbec flavor

>>2509730
yes
try fighting countries with tribal cavalry early on

>get tributary to 150 opinion to make them a vassal
>this is impossible

How do you not have a minimap in a strategy game in 2026?

>>2509808
Minimap is sold separately in the carts and cartographers DLC

>>2509808
Thanks I'll make sure to include this in my game

>>2509550
1336 was a mistake

>>2509861
It's probably the biggest single mistake of the game and entirely unforced which is the worst part.

>>2509861
>make fifth entry in game about dawn of the modern era, colonialism, centralized states
>set it in the late middle ages where 150 years of retarded sandbox breaks everything before those things take place

>>2509863
>>2509868
Do you guys think 1360 would've been a better option?
>Timur is around and kicking shit
>Have to deal with the aftermath of the black death instead of the completely useless situation you can't influence anyway
>Don't have to wait decades for the yuan to fall before you can actually play the game in east asia (yuan might still be salvageable if you're a minmaxing autist)
>Europe is basically the same other than 100 years' war being in full swing, byzzies being even weaker (which is more fun anyway) and no retarded kyiv blob hampering Poland/Lithuania/Muscovy

>>2509870
It should start no sooner than 1430. The first 100 years are just actively harming the experience at worst and total waste of time at best.

>>2509872
What's your reasoning for 1430?

>>2509881
To skip the first 100 years, the date itself is irrelevant just pick your favorite event from that century and start from there.

>>2509870
I'd honestly just go somewhere around 1492 everything you think of for Europa Universalis colonialism, reformation happens in the century or so after that if you make that the start point people might actually at least make it to the 1650s before the game hits the wall

>>2509886
>people might actually at least make it to the 1650s before the game hits the wall
I think this is a different issue entirely desu. There just isn't enough content to make it further, and in most EU games you're already your regions hegemon by this time. There needs to be a FUN, but realistic, mechanic(s) which makes playing to the early 19th centry FUN.

>>2509894
The 16th to early 19th century is probably the most fun era of European history though its essentially a giant thunderdome of competing nations great powers rising new religions and political ideologies. If they can't make that interesting they're fucked granted part of the issue is Paradox always seem to focus on playing around with mechanics for the early campaign rather than making stuff so people have a reason to carry on after they get bored of building to get the biggest green number

>>2509901
>>2509886
>>2509882
>>2509872
Alright thanks boys. I'm gonna start the game around 1360 but include bookmarks around the start of the 15th and 16th century with it running to the start of the 19th (right before real industrialization). If it doesn't end up working out I'll change it up a bit, but it'll be a while until I get to this part anyway.

What if the whole map was covered by fog of war and only occasionally got "reports" from your generals or advisors that might be totally lies depending on loyalty/personalities

hell
could just go to a full text based game

>>2509870
>Have to deal with the aftermath of the black death
Which is also a golden plate to add some "gender equality" events.

>>2509908
Espionage becomes op. Also less fun to engage with as a game because engaging with bad information kinda sucks unless the whole game is built around that.

File: 1792630667666191.jpg (77 KB, 1047x1080)

77 KB JPG

>>2509937 >>2509953 >>2509978

It really hasn't ever been more over. 1.3 felt like the game was getting better and then this beta comes out and we have fucking mana again and my hour ticks are gone. EU5 is never going to be good isn't it? They're going to flip flop on ideas until it pleases no one aren't they?

>>2509934
I’m not playing EU5 until it’s done because I already went through this with Imperator. I’m content to wait until it gets a 2.0 then kicked to the curb and abandoned, and then I will learn the game and decide if I like it or not.

>>2509799
no land for free goy

>>2509934
why do you like hourly ticks

>>2509908
Doesn't work for a game on this scale. I think there was some Total war type indie game set during the Napoleonic era which tried this.

File: 1792823823968739.png (694 KB, 1280x720)

694 KB PNG

>>2509990 >>2510024

>>2509937
Man, if EU5 goes the way of Imperator I'm gonna be devastated.
>>2509953
It made army movement so much more fun. I could cut off reinforcing enemy armies because the travel time was like 6 hours and the fight lasted 4 hours. If timed when the main army was walking away you could really thread the needle. Hour ticks also meant that reinforcing mostly just didn't happen. Army got caught? Then the army got caught. You might be able to deal with the enemy army after the battle but the battle was going to finish first. I do not like the EU4 system of 1 day minimum for travel and fights last for weeks.

File: file.png (1.37 MB, 896x1152)

1.37 MB PNG

mena consort a cute!

bought the game shortly after release, never really learned it. should i bother trying to get into it after the 1.4 patch?

File: 1767145926349408.png (254 KB, 635x473)

254 KB PNG

>playing the beta
>giving Johan your money so he can not spend it on QA (you do it 4free)
Couldnt be me, I'm saving up all my dissapointment for wednesday

>>2509953
Johan himself in early tinto talks says that the increased granularity of locations required moving the game up from daily to hourly ticks

>>2509934
The development has been reactive and slapping on bandaids since release because it wasn't ready for 1.0 and they presold DLC. So much tech debt already. Maybe it'll start getting better once the first four DLC are out of the way but do you really believe that? Johan has also said that every major patch needs to introduce new mechanics, as a company philosophy.

>>2509978
>Johan himself in early tinto talks says that the increased granularity of locations required moving the game up from daily to hourly ticks
This is true in the abstract but nothing in the game justifies the behavior and it's certainly not worth the absurd performance hits.

File: 1792214599645825.gif (57 KB, 500x333)

57 KB GIF

>>2509978
No I don't think the new DLCs will make anything better. The DLCs so far at best do nothing for me. I have no interest in playing countries that are already established like Byzantium or Castille. Everything bigger than 1 province at game start is piss easy and boring. Johan is a retard. That's all I have to say about him.

>>2509957
>Man, if EU5 goes the way of Imperator I'm gonna be devastated.
If the player count doesn't rise significantly after pillars and the patch there no way it doesn't. They can't justify keeping an entire studio and vineyard going for a game that hasn't managed 10k players in a month
>>2509953
I like them in theory because medieval battles that last about as long as ones from WW1 is retarded but they really didn't work so can't say I miss them.

>>2509953
Why wouldn't I like hourly ticks.

>>2509971
The game gets worse after you learn to play it well, honestly. It's slowly improving on the whole but that doesn't make it good. You could play now if you want to play in Britain, France, or Italy. Wait two weeks for them to patch the DLC if you want to play in Iberia or Maghreb. Avoid until at least 1.5 if you want to play in Germany or Eastern Europe. Avoid until at least 2.0 if you want to play with the New World. Wait even longer if you want to play Japan, and go to plebbit if you want to play China or India.

>>2510002
The lag they cause? I know 75% of the performance improvements were vibecoded, but 25% was the hourly ticks.

>>2510015
Have they considered making a proper game?
jk of course I know they didn't

File: vgh.jpg (1.04 MB, 1920x1080)

1.04 MB JPG

>>2510045 >>2510053 >>2510084 >>2510141

>>2509957
>Man, if EU5 goes the way of Imperator I'm gonna be devastated.
I feel completely the opposite way.

Future if the game does NOT get the Imperator treatment:
>devs keep releasing more and more broken and vibecoded patches
>more bloated power creep DLC where you just get straight bonuses as whichever pay to win blob its centered on
>no stable base for modders to work on, game changes every week
>balance/meta of the game changes as frequently, everything you knew last month is outdated
Future of the game if it DOES get the Imperator treatment:
>no more broken patches, game simply works
>no power creep, every country is balanced
>mods never become outdated, furthermore they can always be added to
>meta of the game never changes
I said before release I wanted this game to get Imperator'd, it's simply the best case scenario for everyone. All the best games went this way, Victoria 2 being the prime example. 3.04 is a complete game without any of the fat, that as a base has been further improved on by modders to become the perfect grand strategy experience, that is what I want for EU5. Plus they can't nickel and dime you that way.

I don't want to call you a retarded zoomer, but thinking you need a constant stream of basedfacing content creators posting about the epic new DLC and all the wacky things you can do if you go out and buy it is goycattle behavior, we have the base game, there is nothing more Paradox can do to improve upon it, in fact everything they do going forward is going to actively make the game worse, as already evidenced by every single patch they've made for the game.
They should just leave it and let railroad mods fix it. Already such mods, such as the gathering of the Rus' and Ottomans and the Holy league have been abandoned because they game was updating every week and they couldn't keep up to it. If there was a stable "finished" version of EU5 it could be polished and finalized by modders.

>>2509990
The game didn't even break 20k with the release of the first DLC.
There is no chance it gets more than 10k average after Pillars.

>>2510030
But this is the first chronicle pack! Spain gets a reform for +1 cabinet member! There's over 9 minutes of authentic Afro-Moroccan Gnawa music!

>>2510024
>They should just leave it and let railroad mods fix it
Nu-paradox fans don’t know the joy that was EU2 with AGCEEP. Historical games simply need extreme levels of railroading. A sandbox or “simulation” approach will simply never produce satisfying results.

>>2510045
I can't honestly believe there's anyone who genuinely likes the current country balance of the game.
The biggest cry of the sandbox shitters is "Why would you want everything to be the same every game?" But it already is, we already have megakyiv, Two Sicilian Greece, Victorian Mamluks, the game is essentially already railroaded, just to the wrong destination.

>>2510024
>>2510045
The game doesn't need railroading, it already has too much. By default, some countries will never declare war for the entire length of the game because their "national personality" never changes. The most boring way to railroad.
What it needs is fixes. You can have a PU, pass the law that prevents junior partners from declaring war, and they will still start wars. During wars, an army of 6k troops will attack a sieging 30k enemy army and get wiped. Alternately, when fighting on two fronts, it might stand in the middle of nowhere and not move for 12 months until a fort falls at which point it might start moving. The AI will instantly peace out a coalition war for humiliation and annulling treaties with an irrelevant country. You can take land from the pope and he will ally you as soon as the war ends. Colonies will rebel on cooldown and then instantly accept a white peace. Military access does not exist, especially for the AI. The only countries that use spy networks are vassals.
I don't know what it's like in la-la-land where making different countries always win instead of the current countries that always win will somehow fix the game, but in a way I'm glad I'm not over there.

>>2510053
>I don't know what it's like in la-la-land where making different countries always win instead of the current countries that always win will somehow fix the game, but in a way I'm glad I'm not over there.
We found him folks, the one guy who likes every single game being won by Megakyiv. Tens of thousands of dollars poured into creating a game solely for this guy.

>>2510053
Literally none of those little issues matter when bvllhemia bvlldozes everything they have more biggerer number and the start date is in the middle ages
Railroading is a basic game function that enables the other minutiae to even exist. Otherwise it's just a game of agar.io with bad performance, big blob eat small blob and none of the other buttons really do anything

Anti-railroaders come in two categories.
There's the naivists, who are genuinely so fucking braindead that they believes the mechanics of the game alone can simulate a realistic world, despite the AI obviously not being able to do that.
And the Sandbox shitter, who wants every single game to be completely off the wall alien space bats quirk chungus gross Ulm, he got into Paradox games by watching HoI4 youtubers revive the Byzantine Empire.

Both of them are completely retarded, but in two completely different ways.
Railroaders coincidentally also come in two different types, very manly and very handsome. But there's a lot of overlap between them.

>>2510054
It'll just be the same, a waste of effort whether the current dominant CPU country is blue or pink or brown. Variety wouldn't hurt at least, but you're not asking for variety.
No matter what name is on the CPU country this month, none of that will change the experience as long as the basic gameplay is like walking across a floor covered in broken glass, trying to avoid the parts that are painful to deal with.

>>2510060
>countries are just like... different colors man... borders aren't real... why would you want russia when you can have megakyiv... O_o
Go play fucking civ or risk. The whole point of geopolitical games is that countries represent ideas and histories and cultures and differences.
You are unable to visualize the apple. You are incapable of independent thought. You are an NPC.

its weird how much content they made for a place like Ethiopia which auto implodes since they have 0 control in 90% of their country

>>2510061
You might have a point if other countries actually interacted with you in this game, but they don't. You only experience country flavor if you are playing that country. Otherwise, Kyiv and Smolensk might as well be the same thing to you.
This game's idea of country interaction is The County of Shaki has joined your Acephalous Patriarchate. The County of Shaki has left your Acephalous Patriarchate.
Which is another one of the pieces of broken glass. You can't even choose which countries you want to pay attention to, instead you have to turn it blanket-on or blanket-off.
Hordes don't even raid you when they have a border. Countries have no memory and don't care whether you did something bad to them in the past, and having good relations with countries doesn't give you nice events or trade bonuses or anything like that. For a game with hundreds of countries, it is depressingly lonely.

>>2510065
If only there were some way to program country behavior into the game that would guide them down a unique path, to help differentiate them and give them purpose at the same time. Perhaps these behaviors could be based on real events, carrying them forward like how a train follows the path down the rails to the next station. I can't think of a name for it though

>>2510065
Railroading countries into their historical position is one of the ways you would make the world alive and interactable.
If Russia was a behemoth seeking to consolidate territory you'd have two avenues of interaction with them as say, Austria, Prussia, or Poland
>delimitate territory into spheres of influence (how to partition lithuania, for example
>make money off of the fur trade because they'd actually own Siberia instead of it being a mess of hordes
This worked perfectly in Victoria 2. If you were friendly with Russia you wouldn't have to worry about them starting crises to free your Slavic ethnic minorities, if you weren't though they'd try to balkanize you.
But you couldn't just be friendly with everyone simultaneously, if you allied Russia they'd pull you into war against the Ottomans, which would pull you into war with Britain, countries actually felt like they had their realistic historical standing.

Seriously bro, just play Victoria 2. We have the technology. The wheel is already invented, we just need to put it on the axle.

>>2510061
>The whole point of geopolitical games is that countries represent ideas and histories and cultures and differences.
Go play Portugal in a historical way and tell me how fun the game is. Or go in the HRE and see how fun the diplomacy to become and act as emperor is. EU5 pretends to offer paths besides blobbing, but when you look inside they're not there. It didn't even bring over the basic implementation of great projects from EU4 to give you something to do with excess money besides spamming mercs.
Civ might actually have more historical flavor. It's been decades since I played it, but I remember you could spend most of a game colonizing and researching. You could larp as america and industrialize or something, be a peacekeeper. These were old Civs though, I have heard some bad things about the new ones.

>>2510074
>Go play Portugal in a historical way and tell me how fun the game is.
I did that and it was fun until about 1500 when you realize the trade range changes they made let you get same-day shipping with amazon prime from ternate to lisbon and none of your feitorias really do anything
Also at that point you start having to expand through subjects which sucks because subjects suck by nature and will never ever be good.
Also at that point I profit 2k ducats a month literally can't spend all the money I make, because some guy on the forums complained ducats are lost to control, so now estates make all that money and pour it into your economy and there's a gorillion bazillion trillion ducats in the game

>>2510076
and all estate buildings are just filler rather than properly building mini-kingdoms inside ur borders

>>2510074
>Go play Portugal in a historical way and tell me how fun the game is.
I have played Portugal 4 times now, it was my first game as well. I thoroughly enjoy it. It's even better now trade orders mean you can actually get the slave trade working. Becomes fucking dogshit in the age of revolutions due to all the colonies getting a "fuck you lmao" modifier, but up until 1737 it's solid gameplay.
I've never once blobbed in Iberia or formed Spain as them btw.
>Or go in the HRE and see how fun the diplomacy to become and act as emperor is.
Played as Austria, the personal union mechanics are shit and unfun. I got a PU over Bohemia that they auto-broke when they got Hussited and I didn't get any means to recreate the Union. I also couldn't PU Hungary because they have Salic law, so no way to get a daughter on their throne and inherit them.
As for the actual HRE, it's janky with poor UI, but functionally it works.

But my main problem with the Austria game was the same thing I'm complaining about to you now. Hungary was not railroaded into its historic state, Ottomans are not railroaded into theres, so instead of the Balkans being basically ignored by Hungary while the Ottomans expand, as it should be, it was Hungary and Two Sicilies blobbing there, which broke immersion and made me realize I was playing a meme game. If it was up to me Hungary and Two Sicilies wouldn't take a single Balkan location. Leaving me, the Austria player, to PU Hungary, and then drive the Turks out of Europe. Liberating a gross Srbja and Turkgaria as I did it.

That's another thing I hate about the game, when I did drive the Turks out the Bulgarian cores had already disappeared, while the entire area was still culturally Bulgarian. This shouldn't happen, and would be another change I made. Culture based cores would never delete, unless you did something like make the entirety of Bulgaria Turkish, which shouldn't be possible either.

>>2510024
The chances of most modding teams these days touching a 2 year old game with barely any players is miniscule. Like Imperator got one big conversion mod in nearly a decade I can't see 5 even getting that by the time the last patch drops. Ante Bellum have already said there's no point going near 5.

>>2510084
the antebellum post explicitly says they've shelved eu5 until the game isn't being raped and gaped by balance-whiplash with every single patch.

>>2510104
They also said lack of players compared to 4 was a reason

File: a09udh.jpg (51 KB, 500x527)

51 KB JPG

>>2510062
see >>2509259
Eu5 has this fun issue, which Victoria 3 also has right now, where it has at most 255 real human players. Very few of whom post in this thread. Even I've stopped playing Eu5, I just come here to see how much worse it's going to get. I am so, so glad I completely gave up on the game before they removed hourly ticks or that would have been a real gut punch.

Nobody knows none of the mountain nations in the game work correctly.
Austria, my second favorite nation in any map game, is unplayable and nobody cares. It will probably stay unplayable forever.

>>2510084
Invictus's last update was less than a month ago. This thread >>2130728 is still up.
The simple fact is if you have a good base game with mechanical flexibility that isn't constantly changing people will polish it until it's gold. EU5 is that. If the devs completely abandoned it today then the railroading mods could start. The no assimilation until age of revolutions mods could start. The mana removal mods could start.
Victoria 2 did not achieve cult like status until after the final patch was done and mods could run buck wild. The old system of updates (actual expansions every couple of years) was much better than getting bloated buggy powercreep turds every few months. Paradox needs to go back to being a dozen autists in Sweden instead of a weltcompanie with shareholders demanding the cash cow be milked barren.

File: 1791775937139624.jpg (111 KB, 700x600)

111 KB JPG

>>2510143

>>2510024
If the game gets abandoned like Imperator we're not going to be left with a stable, balanced game. We're going to be left with the broken, buggy, unbalanced mess that we have.

>>2510141
None of the issues with the game are hardcoded though. The devs are simply completely incompetent. If they would simply leave what they have alone modders could fix it.
It's not like an East vs West situation where no amount of modding would fix the game because mechanically it is broken.

>>2509309
Publish your mods RIGHT FUCKING NOW

>>2510151
It's just some simple stuff, makes institutions spread to India faster, buffs Kyiv a bit, and adds more locations to central Africa.

File: 143dcff38a634953be1f5b50a(...).png (259 KB, 500x334)

259 KB PNG

>>2510152
lol. paradox devs actually think this way. it hurts.

File: black dwarf.jpg (67 KB, 640x775)

67 KB JPG

>>2510156 >>2510183

>>2510062
Ethiopia is almost a case study in their odd decisions. It centers around a period where the old Axumite civilization was declining in the north and power was being re-consolidated in the south around the Amhara. And the game seems to recognize this, starting your capital in Ankober in the Shewa region and your primary culture as Amhara, with Axum and Lalibela not cored and the Agaw culture only tolerated.

So the path forward they want you to take seems pretty clear. Consolidate your power in the southern Amharic regions, maybe move your capital to Gonder, and then expand your influence north into the mountains and re-assimilate the old cities of Axum and Lalibela.

Except, no. That'd doesn't work at all. You start the game in the fucking red and that strategy is how you go fucking bankrupt immediately. Instead, what you HAVE to do is immediately accept the Agaw culture and then move your capital to Axum the moment the city cores. That is literally the only path forward if you don't want to go bankrupt. You then spend all of the early game being a fucking black dwarf building up your iron-tool and wheat-beer-liquor industries while you try to build up enough income to afford to build roads through the fucking mountains so you can connect the rest of your country to Afro-Ironforge.

>>2510154
>the game sets you off consolidating power around your ethnic group in the south while the rest of your country is a madmax shithole
>they could have easily averted this if they just stopped being infighting tribal niggers, but alas they didn't do this so stay backwards forever
im not seeing the problem

>>2510084
Lmao the Ante Bellin devs said that they are dropping the game as long as the playerbase stays this low.

grandi could fix eu5, shame he died fighting with isis

>>2510154
yea but things like control and market access make everything else irrelevant

At the very least, control shouldn't affect your levy size

>>2510183
wtf it absolutely should
how can you round up peasants to serve your army if the state has no means of projecting power there
you think they're just going to come out of the goodness of their hearts?
retarded blobber

the fuck are you talking about, vassals have their own control metric for this exact reason
and yes, if you're a retard and just feed your vassal everything to the point they can't project control they too will be unable to scrape levies from the borderlands beyond their control

>>2510184
It's used to calculate the base political power used to calculate your total crown power
>but is it good?
idk lol

the mountains are tall and the emperor is far away, blobbo
try consolidating your core holdings instead of taking territory you have no means of controlling
eu4 might be more your speed

>taking set phrases literally
unironic autism award

>>2510190
>>2510191
This shit already functioned properly on release, you'd blob to the extent of central control and use vassals (subjects) to control the rest. Then over the ages you'd annex your vassals and centralize further

Then youtubers kept making ARE FIEFDOMS OP??? videos so they embarked on a year-long journey to nerf subjects in every conceivable way
culminating in subjects being LITERALLY unplayable to the point that France would simply explode upon unpausing because they start with some subjects, despite formerly being the strongest country in the game

We have reached peak subject nerf now I think, but it'll take ages to recover from the "post-release panic patch" dark ages

>>2510195
Cruy poopskin

File: Screenshot_20261025_195534.png (542 KB, 605x747)

542 KB PNG

>>2510204 >>2510248

>>2510193
Shieeet I wish. It's based solely off of estate modifiers that grant crown power percentages, government reforms that grant crown power percentages, legitimacy, who you have in your cabinet, the power of your other estates relative to eachother, your laws, and the total population of your country.

Every youtumor talks about how local crown power influences your total crown power but it actually does not do that.

>>2510198
Subjectblobbing was so fucking lame. Releasing them and converting their culture and religion on the same day was never fun and I'm glad they removed it.

>>2510202
It's the first number, next to population.
Pretty sure i tested this a long time ago building counting houses. Spam them everywhere at once and let some months tick by, then check the difference.

>>2510204
Fuck I don't want to do that to prove you wrong right now so I'll concede my argument but I'm going to check it later.

File: 1792984487262.png (876 KB, 988x845)

876 KB PNG

>>2510214

maybe eu5 getting imperator treatment wouldn't be so bad
eu5 needs something in between eu3 m&t to improve game mechanics and steer ai and invictus
i find it hard to believe that tinto can salvage things just because they have to churn out new content to put behind paywalls instead of actually finishing the game

>>2510156
What the fuck are you talking about? They're not in a civil war, the center of power just shifted.

>>2510185
You do a feudalism and have your lords gather the levies from their lands.

>>2510210
>every peasant lived on a feudal plot
lmao, you are completely mindraped by modernity
most peasants lived entirely autonomously from any form of nobility, they lived in little shacks entirely removed from civilization, and that's what lack of control represents, people who completely slipped through the cracks of government oversight

>>2510207
EU5 needs HPM.

The blobbers actually came up to me with tears in their eyes and said "please, please allow me to extract value out of land I have no feasible means of administering!" and I said "No, you will stay within reasonable limits, you'll build up your state, and then maybe later you'll be allowed to expand."

>>2510215
kys ryagi

>>2510219
blob in hell, eu4kiddie

>>2510210
Bro he can't do that because indians never invented feudalism even in 2026, they're incapable of comprehending the concept, the institution never spread there it's crazy, it's like god removed the magical monarch points from real life so they can't dsev spam their capital for institutions in india.

>>2510232
IDS

>>2510202
>>2510184
If you hover over the base value in your estates menu it shows the breakdown on how crown power comes from various locations. Needless to say -85% crown power is extremely crippling if that's how most of your country looks.

>>2510210
Far away lords simply do not come when the king calls as effectively as nearby ones because the king has less control over them. That's how feudalism worked and it's in the game represented by control. Feudal levies were never particularly reliable, that's one of the primary reasons they were abandoned in favor of more centrally controlled recruitment and training. Just in case you do not know feudalism wasn't actually magic.

I wish the game had feudalism, instead you will still spawn SOME levies in places with zero control and no one will build anything useful in fringe areas even if it's a relatively rich area.
The game is CK3 but without the parts that make sense. In that game every province has a sub-owner character and you can only directly control X number of locations yourself without penalties, so you never have to build 200 training fields at the same time.
In EU5 you have 300 noble characters and 295 of them don't do anything.

the blobber is going all out
just build bailiffs lil bro, accept some cultures, build some roads and bridges...

>>2510257
poor reading comprehension award

please bro, im begging you, ONE local governor

I'm saying you shouldn't have ANY control where you don't have control. Instead you should have to hand it off to someone else who will actually do something with it (for themselves. not you.)
EU5 still gives you levies, manpower, and all the trade goods so it doesn't even hurt you to blob, it's just annoying instead.

thats literally already how the game works

>>2510269
No it isn't. You get some levies and manpower from your remote islands in the pacific, and you get all the trade goods into your market even in places where you have 0 control.

>>2510267
>(for themselves. not you.)
That's what low control represents. This is already in the game.
>EU5 still gives you levies, manpower,
Very low amounts which is fair. Not even shitholes were totally independent, some taxes even if low amounts always end up in state coffers.
>and all the trade goods
Trade goods don't generate profit by themselves and distance from the market doesn't actually destroy goods in real life. Market access basically handles this adequately and it's already in the game.

>>2510272
>That's what low control represents. This is already in the game.
No it isn't. If there is zero control in an area, it will be like it's a poor area where only estates build useless stuff. If it were like CK3 for example, there would be a noble building the area up, instead of sitting around like a neet.
>Very low amounts which is fair.
Nah. You shouldn't get manpower from Africa while you're in England.
The fact that you get rewards for holding 0 control land is why colonies are useless and blobbing is good. All 0 control does is make blobbing annoying to play, while still optimal.

ulm

>>2510272
By the way if your market is too far away for them to trade with a location, the items should be sold or hoarded locally and not magically available to turn into profit in your capital.
Low control is not punishing enough, that's why blobbing is strong.

>>2510276
>No it isn't. If there is zero control in an area, it will be like it's a poor area where only estates build useless stuff
That's only abstraction. Estates build estate buildings and these "useless" stuff which is useful to them, just not to you. They also build RGO's and roads and all the other stuff.
>instead of sitting around like a neet
That's more to do with how the game was made to be a game. Everything costs more for estates and they exclusively build bad stuff to prevent the game from playing itself. If you want the "game plays itself" experience just toggle auto construction and pretend everything is made by estates.
>Nah. You shouldn't get manpower from Africa while you're in England.
Real life England used African manpower for all sorts of things, why not you.
>The fact that you get rewards for holding 0 control land
You don't get rewards for holding 0 control land.

>>2510305
>By the way if your market is too far away for them to trade with a location
That's what market access represents. It's in the game already.
>the items should be sold or hoarded locally
That's what market access represents. It's in the game already.
>not magically available to turn into profit in your capital.
That's not even what happens in the game. 0 market access goods aren't available and you can extract exactly 0 profit from 0 market access RGO. The good itself isn't destroyed by distance to the market which is also true in real life. Colonial powers didn't make their money from a low control coffee plantation they made their money by transporting a cheap coffee bean to a market where it wasn't cheap, which is exactly the mechanism that's in the game. Low control and low market access RGO's only provide the goods, none of the profit. You need a different market and trade to make any money off them.

>>2510310
>Real life England used African manpower for all sorts of things, why not you.
Because they had high control in those areas haha
(nta)

>>2510320
No they didn't

>>2510249
>>2510267
The game has that. It’s called creating a vassal. Switch the map mode to share overlord color and stop thinking about them like EU4 vassals.

>>2510331
Creating a vassal is not the same as a nobleman tasked with land administration, only one of these is represented in the game.

>>2510335
You can literally select one of your noblemen to run the new countship.

>>2510335
I wonder what was the tittle of relation between the king and such noblemen...

>>2510310
>Real life England used African manpower for all sorts of things, why not you
Not in the EU timeframe it didn't. Sepoys sure the EIC did local recruitment to fight its wars but intentional recruitment of African regiments is at the tail end of the Victorian era

Does anyone know how to use an effect command to change a location's pop types? I've learned how to change a location's pop's culture but not their type. Can't seem to figure it out. I want more tribesmen.

>>2510213
Free peasants still had to obey their lords. Not being a serf just meant that you weren't tied to the land and paid your lord with taxes rather than duties. A lord absolutely could levy a free peasant.

And lack of control represents the lack of power of the CROWN, not of the local nobility. In fact, there's a whole fucking mechanic based around the nobility having more power in low control provinces.

>>2510342
They used African manpower in Africa. All sorts of police and local forces were African. More over if you think you don't want African manpower then just don't build manpower buildings in Africa. It's not like English couldn't have raised African regiments at the time, they just you know didn't do that which is entirely your own choice as immortal and all powerful ghost in the game.

>>2510347
Why would you give control to a vassal if you already have high control? What kind of stupid post is that?

>>2510346
>A lord absolutely could levy a free peasant.
But couldn't if their control was low, which is just historic fact. Low control areas had lower rates of taxation and levying despite nominally the same tax and levy laws simply because it's more difficult to enforce orders that people do not like to be enforced when you are out of the area where orders can be enforced.
>And lack of control represents the lack of power of the CROWN
Which is why when you as a CROWN order something to happen such as taxation you as a CROWN get low amount when the control is low while nobles get the rest.

File: IMG_7646.jpg (181 KB, 1170x785)

181 KB JPG

The amount of bullshit you have to do to make sure the Wars of the Roses happen and to get the Tudors is retarded. I WANT history in my history game. I WANT the content locked behind having the Tudors. I WANT a big ‘enry. Why is that locked behind several unrelated events and then the Yorkists and Lancastrians can just die off before you get to that point and so it never happens. RAILROAD IT YOU FUCKS. Give people a way to avoid it if they’re good at the game, but why the fuck do I need to know that I need event eng_flavor.1404 so I can make sure eng_flavor.1405 fires, and there’s no fucking tooltips says the latter requries Henry Tudor to be born by that first one and that first will never fire if you’re playing the game properly and marrying off your sons quickly. I didn’t get this game so Nigel IV can build a sheep pen. I got it to RAPE the Spanish Armada and L A R P. These games are for L A R P ing. Sandbox fags are retarded.

>>2510337
>>2510339
You are being dishonest, if a player were to create a vassal in land with low control (let alone trying to emulate a case where every noble have some land) instead of having it cored he would be shooting himself in the foot, but you already knew that.
>>2510349
What could you possibly be talking about o.O

>>2510358
>if a player were to create a vassal in land with low control (let alone trying to emulate a case where every noble have some land) instead of having it cored
Low control and cored land is worse than vassal land in lots of cases, you can get more levies and taxes out of a vassal and getting rid of low control land improves your crown power and research speed.
It's also irrelevant observation, real life empires would have also done better if they had direct control than not and the ones with better administration that allowed them more direct control were more successful. In fact history can be viewed from bureaucratic lens quite easily as progression from low to high state power, states have never had as much control as they do today and as a result have never been this powerful. Real life states didn't give out power because they thought that was the best move, they did so because they were forced to by their institutions and estates into it. The fact that you as a player can choose the best option is entirely because this is a game where you play as immortal ghost and not as a contemporary character with real stakes in the society you live in.
Basically you are doubly blown out by not only being directly wrong in your assertion but also being wrong in your implication.

>>2510358
Why would you want every noble holding represented? It stops being important by the late 1500s too where noble titles started becoming less connected to the administration of specific land. The count and up is sufficient anyway and those were the ones really administering any significant land for a king. You’re supposed to spend the timeframe of the game moving away from Feudalism and towards a centralized state. But that’s literally what vassals are meant to represent in this game: internal administrative divisions. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but that’s literally what it is in the game.

>>2510350
While difficulty of transportation did limit the direct power of the crown, I am unaware of the loyalty of your lords having been distance-based.

>>2510364
>I am unaware of the loyalty of your lords having been distance-based.
Well that's kinda your fault for being really dumb then. I suggest picking up a book or two and fixing that. Or are you just like 14 or what?

>>2510364
People today complain about centers of government being far away despite travel being the fastest it’s ever been. Go ask a Scot what they think about London.
The only caveat I think of though is how Aquitaine was more loyal to England during the HYW because England was further away and less likely to interfere with local affairs. So it’s not a one size fits all thing

>>2510367
I think it's entirely fair to say that loyalty drops as a factor of distance (or travel time more accurately) but it has exceptions, especially early in the period, mostly due to personal or historic relations which makes the games representation good one in this case depicting the overall trend without the exceptions. The exceptions can't be realistically modeled so it's fine to generally ignore them and if you find some massive one just slap a modifier for that case.

>>2510364
if you're so far away that you can neither be protected nor attacked, then what's the point of the relationship? History and legitimacy only goes so far, and eventually actual vassalage turns into nominal allegiance and then into nothing.

>>2510361
You forgot that my main point is that the game fails to emulate everything you are describing, which comes from somebody saying that vassals are literally the same as the representation of nobleman being assigned crown lands to manage and develop (it is NOT)
>The fact that you as a player can choose the best option
There are not many options to chose from.
I am only wrong because you decided to change my original point.
>>2510362
>It stops being important by the late 1500s
Oh cool, so only more than 200 years after game start. Great. Thanks.

>>2510370
>You forgot that my main point is that the game fails to emulate everything you are describing
What part does it fail to emulate?
>which comes from somebody saying that vassals are literally the same as the representation of nobleman being assigned crown lands to manage and develop (it is NOT)
Noblemen being assigned to do that are literally called vassals in real life. And yes if a real life power assigned such a vassal to govern in their stead then said nobleman would take their part of the cake and not be perfectly loyal slave, which is what happens in game. In the low level you can think of each location having their nobles (which most actually do) and said nobles do the day to day administering, because this is a video game it's not sensible to model tens of thousands of vassal relations so only the top tier ones are represented which the game calls accurately vassals. Either you leave the administering to low level vassals in which case your taxes go to 0 as your control of said vassals goes to 0 (as it does historically) or you create a more important and hence more powerful middle manager (called a vassal) that has their own power base that can more effectively command from said power base but is less loyal to you on big ticket matters like having their own diplomacy (which also happens historically).
>There are not many options to chose from.
The same as in real life, you either manage the land directly or you don't.
>I am only wrong because you decided to change my original point.
You were wrong and still are wrong because your original point and your new point are both wrong both in game and in history.

>>2510374
>What part does it fail to emulate?
Oh well kill youself
>Noblemen being assigned to do that are literally called vassals in real life
Kill yourself faggot.

>>2510310
>You don't get rewards for holding 0 control land.
You get levies/manpower. You may also indirectly get more resources into your market because of market protection. And that's leaving aside if the estates use the untaxed money to build something in your core areas.
That's what market access represents. It's in the game already.
No it isn't.
Have a market with one gold RGO in it.
Multiply the RGO's level by the output per level.
This will equal the supply of the gold in that market, even when the market access is lower than 100%.
For some stupid reason market access only affects taxes.

>>2510382
*taxes and building production, not RGO production

>>2510382
>You get levies/manpower.
With 0 control you gain 0 levies and 0 manapower
>You may also indirectly get more resources into your market because of market protection
That's just about the only benefit, which is also historically true, if you show your rivals that you are willing to defend a shithole then you have more right to it's resources. Which is again just historically true.
>This will equal the supply of the gold in that market, even when the market access is lower than 100%.
Low market access doesn't destroy gold, why would it? You pay for the transport by not gaining any money from the sales of the RGO like you would if you had control and market access. In case of a building you pay for the transport with part of the production. This is again how historically empires benefited from low control areas, they took the resources and sold them somewhere else. The resource production itself made no money.

>>2510385
>With 0 control you gain 0 levies and 0 manapower
Play the game, make colonies on random islands or Africa or whatever and notice that when you hit the raise all levies button, it makes levies there.
Also look at the dev notes. In 1.4 they specifically made it so mid-control locations give you less manpower than before, but they noted that there is still a minimum of 10% no matter how low your control is.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-118-introducing-1-4-miscellaneous-changes.1936658/
>with a floor of 10% so occupied land never produces literally nothing.
>Low market access doesn't destroy gold
Like I said, it should be sold or hoarded locally and not enter the market where you can get trade income from it or make it into jewelry, mint it, etc. Then you said market access prevents this, but it doesn't.
This is part of the reason why blobbing is so powerful. You don't really lose that much from 0 control as long as you can handle an occasional (annoying) rebellion.

File: knight girl.jpg (367 KB, 1920x1280)

367 KB JPG

>>2510414

>>2510248
The levy actually predated the military obligation of feudal lords. It was used by the Franks and the Anglo Saxons (and presumably the various German kingdoms at the time). By having a levy of commonfolk the king was able to reduce his dependence on large landowners. However the decline of bureaucracy and increase in the military significance of horsemen made this unfeasible and it was replaced by the military obligation of vassals attended by professional retainers in most of Europe by the 800s. This further cemented the power of the nobility as the king was no longer the uncontested strongest power in the realm. The last major kingdom to rely on levies was Harold Godwinson's England where the king received a special tax from every freeman to pay for the training and equipment of a large infantry levy in times of war. So before feudal times, the levy was very much a centralising thing, while during feudal times, the military was very much professional.

>>2510393
>Play the game, make colonies on random islands or Africa or whatever and notice that when you hit the raise all levies button, it makes levies there.
Play the game and those places don't have 0 control. I don't care what the devs say about some patch that happens in the future. If they put in a 10% levy minimum then that's bad but understandable I guess.
>Like I said, it should be sold or hoarded locally
That's what low market access does which means you don't get income. The gold ends up on the market because that's where things are sold into.
>Then you said market access prevents this, but it doesn't.
I said the thing you were whining about was in the game which it is. The good is not magically available, it's regularly available by you paying the price of not getting any money out of it. If you want to get benefit of a low market access RGO then you need to do as countries did historically and either sell it in a place with high demand or use it in industry. This is in fact good and historical. It creates the historical and good gameplay of market centers being places where industry thrives and hinterlands being places for resource extraction in support of industry. It avoids the situation where you have to put a market on every tile to maximize RGO's and it avoids the situation where you put your market on the mountains to maximize the gold or iron or what ever neither of which makes gameplay or historic sense.
>You don't really lose that much from 0 control
You don't gain anything from it either. Low control doesn't give you levies or taxes, it lowers your average control which nukes your crown power and lowers your research rate and it's totally irrelevant to the market side of things if you own an enemy owns a province in your market so long as it belongs in your market (and if you can blob there then it will be in your market by just making a vassal). The average control is far bigger penalty than 1 guy.

>>2510403
>The levy actually predated the military obligation of feudal lords.
Levying is far older than that. It's like one of the first things in history, Babylon was levying armies. But levying capacity has grown with state power and control irrespective of the system used to actually levy people. Feudalism is just the thing the sperg is talking about so that's what I'm also talking about. Roman state had much higher state power than the fragmented states of the middle ages and thus far greater ability to levy people in it's armies.
>So before feudal times, the levy was very much a centralising thing
Yes, being able to levy means your state has some power to influence things, raising a military is typically one of the first responsibilities of a state and probably the #1 thing that separates a state from a non state. Again irrelevant though.
>while during feudal times, the military was very much professional.
Only some feudal levies were professional so this is just wrong and I don't even know why you even bring this up as it has nothing to do with the topic. Often times the noble was expected to personally show up and he certainly wasn't a professional soldier most of the time, a noble may have some household troops which are in fact professional soldiers but he would often expected to arrive with his levies e.g. various armed peasants and other men from his fief which again majority would not have been professional soldiers. That has nothing to do with the issue where far away and thus low control feudal obligations would in fact not be honored nearly as much as nearby ones. Feudal obligations and feudal nobles were no mindless slaves or pacts sealed by magic or power of god. They were merely arrangements by humans with human motivations.
Like this guy says
>>2510369
Feudal obligations are a spectrum from 100% to enemy.

I play an hour then I just go to hoi3

just skim-read all the posts in the last few hours, and as usual everyone is retarded but me
>levies spawn on zero control islanderinos!
1. Those aren't 0 control. Being a core gives an automatic 20 control to represent the inherent loyalty of your primary/accepted culture to the state, those island settlers WOULD show up to fight for you if you called them up but
2. Just don't fucking raise them, bro. Just because 13 colonial peasants would be willing to fight for you if you had means of bringing them to Europe doesn't mean doing so makes economic sense. The cost of transporting them in boats and logistics far outways the benefit they provide, just stand them down.

Ulm WC.

>>2510404
>If they put in a 10% levy minimum
It's not new. The text indicates that this is a nerf compared to what it was before, but low control areas were not nerfed.

>>2510450
No, you wouldn't get 10% of the American military to fight for Britain in Europe if the king asked nicely.

>>2510471
Well at least a third of the colonies' population sided with the crown during the rebellion so that's something.

File: HO-iPO5WoAAtNgS.jpg (95 KB, 1365x767)

95 KB JPG

>>2510512 >>2510536

>Unironic duscussion about levie systems ITT
You see, this is the fucking problem. EUV is basically a medieval game when it's supposed to be about the modern era: profesional armies, mercenaries, pike and shot, wars or religion, absolutism, artillery, centralization, colonialism, global trade...
This is the fundamental, spiritual problem of the game.
That and the fact that Johan is a retard.

johan is a NIGGER* :D

*snownigger

>>2510466
In 1.3 you can get to 0% levies. There's no such thing as 10% minimum

>>2510493
Modern era troops were still often levies, in fact it's a major weakness of the game that levies are so easily and quickly thrown into the trash. Especially if you look beyond Europe but for instance in the Napoopan wars something like 70-80% of GB's sailors were press ganged as in levies into service. On the continental side tons of armies used some sort of levied troops. Pike and Shot, that's all levies etc.
It itself is hardly relevant, for a video game the system is entirely adequate, it's more fun to control permanent armies than not, just saying that levies are historic, they aren't just medieval crap.

>game requires IQ of 110 to enjoy
>entire EU4 fanbase filtered
What did Johan mean by this

File: 20th century levoid man.jpg (1.32 MB, 1064x1600)

1.32 MB JPG

>>2510541 >>2510546

>>2510493
Even Victoria 3 has conscripts. Hell, HoI and East vs West had militia troops, so technically "levies" should exist as militia until the end date of EvW, 1991.
>tfw now remember when i tried to do a militia only USSR run in HoI3 and proceeded to get rekt
good times

>>2510532
youre right, it's a peak midwit game

>>2510532
This is the hardest part about EU5, do you criticize the game and lump yourself in with the mouth breathing EU4ucks mad that after a full year they still don't understand control, or pretend EU5 is a good game when it so clearly isn't?

>>2510536
Conscripts are levies anon.

File: literally just said that.jpg (215 KB, 700x544)

215 KB JPG

>>2510547

>>2510541

File: 1732754311960755.gif (2.97 MB, 300x219)

2.97 MB GIF

>>2510556

>>2510536
Post-Napoleonic conscripts are widely different from medieval levies and the complete polar opposite of WW1 mass movilization.
Plus Victoria 3 fuckins sucks.

>>2510545
I mean today. Almost every army either relies on levies all the time or they have them as their "actual army" if they have to fight and merely have a professional army during peace times. Those guys being bussified in ukraine? Just non-accepted culture levies.

File: feudal levies vs conscripts.png (728 KB, 881x687)

728 KB PNG

>>2510546
>Post-Napoleonic conscripts are widely different from medieval levies
Which is why they're represented as completely different unit types with completely different stats.

>>2510547
Maybe modern Russia does have levies, but first world countries train their drafted soldiers before they send them to fight, so I wouldn't say it's equivalent in most cases.

>>2510558
He's 100% right. The people in armies now are all professional soldiers, except in militarized regimes where being in the army can advance your career and/or social standing, like North Korea or the United States, but when shit hits the fan it's just conscripts given two weeks of training and sent to the frontline as a meatshield.

File: 1765155454212107.jpg (7 KB, 250x171)

7 KB JPG

>>2510564

Imo late game levies should be militia, and seldom used, the term levy was often used in militia records
Conscripts should be part of the regular army, because they were

>>2510558
Training isn't the defining point of a levy, Russia for what it's worth isn't using levies to fight in ukraine despite having conscription since the guys there are at least nominally volunteers which makes them professional soldiers. The difference between levy and professional soldier is if they are there by choice or because they have been forced to. Conscripts get trained to be more effective in combat, that doesn't mean they aren't levies. That's why I said conscripts are levies because you implied that only militia units were levies when nearly every single soldier in WW2 (and after for that matter) has been a levy.

>>2510562
Levies are part of a regular army, always have been.

File: pic.jpg (298 KB, 531x685)

298 KB JPG

>>2510570

>>2510508
More details are required here, I think.
The image is from 1.3, a location with 0 max control.
You would get a total of 4.63 soldiers if they weren't recently raised, which is >10% of the available levy pool of 35. I have no idea if the game would round up or down in this scenario, since I've never researched this before.
This is because of the modifiers which add to the levy percentage after the control malus, and that's what the dev post was really about, I think. Like, if you have 20% control with these modifiers then you would be able to raise half the levy pool or so if it wasn't recently raised.
In 1.4 the levies (and regular manpower) will supposedly be capped at your control percentage even if you have modifers that would raise it. I'm not sure if the 10% minumum only applies to this max cap or applies after all the modifiers, but the point is that a 0 control location in 1.3 can give you more than 10% of your levies/manpower right now, and what they were really trying to nerf is 20-50% control locations which give you 50+% of your military contribution because of modifiers.

I'm so glad I only care about building tall and couldn't give less of a shit about armies other than their ability to increase demand for weapons, leather, cannons, and firearms in my industries.

>>2510566
What details are you missing. 35 pops 0.25 for culture, 1+(-1+0.1+0.2375+0.2) = 0.53 for modifiers and 0.48 for recovering. Remove your modifiers and you hit 0.

I have not played the 1.4 beta but judging by the dev post they probably means they just change the additive modifiers from additive to multiplicative so instead of raising that 0% to 53% they multiply the final number by 53% which in this case would be 0 * 1.53 = 0. Then they just add a 10% floor to the control the help the noobs.

>>2510570
>Remove your modifiers and you hit 0.
Well yes, but I don't have a game without modifiers.
All I'm saying for sure is that you can get levies with 0 control in 1.3, and it's >10% so I can't say more than that. I can't say whether the floor is already there or not, or what the 1.4 floor applies to. It could put a minimum on the levy output, or it could put a floor on the cap so that you could still theoretically produce 0 levies.
If you're cored it's an accepted culture so I guess that would just be 70% or so of your levies at 20% control.

>>2510574
(last sentence applies to 1.3 and is presumably nerfed in 1.4)

>>2510574
I can say that there's no such thing as a 10% floor and you can easily do a test game in like 2 minutes if you don't believe me. Pick any tag, annex some land if neccessary to get a 0% control location, give yourself stab to remove the modifiers and watch as you get 0 levies from a location. You can of course absolutely refuse to play the game but be confidently wrong regardless.

>>2510576
The question to me is what the behavior is like in 1.4. Does it make you get more levies at 0 control sans modifiers than you would now, or does it just behave like a max value?

>>2510578
I dunno seems to be minimum of 10% which would be dumb. I never claimed to care much about it. All I'm saying that currently no such thing as a minimum and if you have a 0 control shithole without modifiers then you in fact do not get soldiers out of it unlike what our brave indian was saying above.

>johan is literally paying people to just make shit up about the game to engagement farm at this point
we're reaching over levels we didn't think possible

>>2510580
Everybody and their brother does run those estate privileges and starts with serfdom, so in practice you do end up with military rewards for 0 control.
I didn't know the math, I just knew that it happened. I can see why they nerfed it if freshly cored land with no other control source gives you quite a lot of levies pre-1.4.

>>2510591
>I have modifier maxed and now my modifiers are maxed send help
yawn

>>2510593
You don't really have to put effort in for that to happen. Probably most countries start with some amount of serfdom, and are encouraged to keep it. England starts with +30% levy size from starting privileges even though its serfdom isn't that high. And if you pick privileges because it looks like you increase your army size, you'd get the modifiers without knowing what you're doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI-7XoIez-I

>>2510588
you mean hes use using another couple of claude bots and a few spare tokens

>game requires me to be an LLM to work on
>entire codebase filtered
what did paradox mean by this?

>>2510629
>cardinals are now people!
and? they do fucking nothing
they really need to decide if they want characters to be ck3 lite or non-existent, because the present "graphical interface for its own sake" isn't adding anything to the game.

How about they actually give cardinals their own personalities, so they have actual opinions on asking for papal bulls? And how about instead of simply modifier buffs papal bulls have actual consequences, with both positive and negative effects?

So sick of them announcing "features" and the "feature" is just tedium with no player interactability. All "papal bulls" (modifierslop) are always active because the AI petitions for them and every totally consequential cardinal approves them.

File: images.jpg (15 KB, 484x632)

15 KB JPG

It could all have been different if they'd just switched to Sauvignon Blanc

>>2510640
The character system is an abortion and should have never been in this game but now that it's here they may as well try to integrate as many things into it, cardinals make em people even if they do nothing fuck it.

I imagine it went something like
>We need mechanics Catholicism sucks compared to Isla-
>CARDINALS AS CHARACTERS! [thrown wine glass hits the wall]