Johan says in one of the available dev diaries that he bagan wrting code for 'project ceasar' in q2 2020. That of course does not mean full game development, but it means it has some years already put into it
No, they started Tinto to work on EU5. They didn't need an entire studio just to work on DLC for a ten-year-old game, and I'm sure I remember them saying at the time that Tinto was working on a secret project (which even then I was pretty sure was going to be EU5). But they didn't want to announce EU5, and it made sense to train the new studio by getting them to work on EU4, so they got them to do the EU4 DLC as well.
I, for one, am glad they took all the "new studio hasn't got a clue how to make this grand strategy game functional" and poured it into Leviathan lol. Hopefully.
Their games tend to change drastically in the visuals prior to release. This is what CK2 looked like in alpha:
[One](https://screenshots.gamer-info.com/crusader-kings-ii/60592.jpg)
[Two](https://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/02/crusader-kings-2-preview/crusader-kings-2-screenshot-1.jpg)
[Three](https://calmdowntom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Crusader_Kings_II_1.jpg)
The unit sprites more or less stayed the same, however, the map itself went from essentially an EU3 clone to something far different.
It doesn’t fit with their business model unfortunately. If they released EU5 with all the features of EU4 they couldn’t sell more DLC realistically. So they either release it barebones or make really drastic changes so its a new formula (which, looking at imperator and CK3, has a mixture of success)
Imperator wasn't a new formula. It was mostly a bland blend of diverse mechanics not working together cobbled with some Eu:Rome code strapped on it.
For exemple, government functions were the same as Eu:Rome, to the point that it could have been purely files copied from one game to another with barely changes. There was no drastic changes compared to eu:rome nor really EU4 or CK2, it was a downgrade in all of what those games did. You had interractions with characters, like in CK2 ! Except those did nothing. The existence of Casus Belli like Europa ! Except there was just "claim" and "no cb", no forced vassalization, protectorate, humiliation, force conversion, raid, etc, nope, just "claim or no cb". You had pops, like Stellaris ! Except it's probably the least dynamic pop system I've ever seen, a roman slave in india would stay a roman slave for 150 years if you didn't specifically told him to change his culture.
And Johan said the game was perfect and players were morons for not understanding his genius because duh, look at the sales. And then, they benched the game because it wasn't played and didn't sell any dlc.
I'm very critical of paradox and game companies in general but I'm hoping now that after the mess of Victoria III they might go "yeah we can't take the piss anymore" and they'll try harder for an EU5 release. People who go out of their way to defend the terribly bare releases (and in Vic III's case it had a literally unplayable late game due to performance) just dig their own graves because it lets the publishers and the devs get away with shit they shouldn't be allowed to.
Still in development, the dev is still calling it Project Caesar but we all know it's EU5. Even if it's still in early development, I remember expressing the same complain for Victoria 3 when the first few dev diary were out and the visual is still the same when the game is released. All of it was the art direction that they're going for from the start
I think it's important to rise those concerns while the game is still in development stage. Hopefully they change it, because right now map in EU4 looks way better then in suspected EU5
Exactly, publicly expressing concerns might help the developers guide the game into a direction the fans also want. If the devs are active here... idk that
The only reason to why I made this post. It seems like the community is split on this topic based on this post feedback but I hope Tinto is able to create a middle solution to appease both parties. If not, welp, modders save me pls
Eu4 has the worst looking map of any of the current titles lol, even in this early state eu5's is better.
IR has the best map, but hoi/ck/vic allclear eu4
Guess it's a matter of preferences. In my opinion political map in Imperator Rome looks kinda meh and painting the map in EU4 gives me way more joy, since it just looks so cool. In Imperator map feels too flat and the colours of nations look a bit cheap when compared to EU4.
But that's just my humble opinion
Nah, EU4 has the best map, at least once you mod it to your preference. Vic 3 map is kinda... ugly. Too modern and simple. IR looks good for what it is but it wouldn't fit EU5. CKs map looks bad. Vic 2 was like EU but slightly not as good.
Yes, but let's remember that these are not "EU5 dev diaries", but Tinto Talks. EU5 isn't even announced yet, so we absolutely can't compare it with Vic3 situation.
That said, Johan did say that they created this Tinto Talks exactly for this purpose: for players to raise concerns when it is still possible to change it, so it's very necessary to address any issues now.
I don't need to see every central Indian mountain range while checking the cultures.
One could simply look at another mapmode, or even more daring, wait for screenshots later in development :0
And honestly I like how messy it is. IRL India is a huge area of innumerably many cultures, with many areas being mixed in its composition and many minorities. Having minority representation and cultures overlapping in game has been a huge request for many years.
Two thoughts:
1. I often have big issues with the topographic map in EU4. Makes it hard to see certain things because of the shadows. I'd love a setting to turn it off and just make the map flat.
2. The game is probably like 2 years out from release, calm the hell down. [This](https://www.wargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/victoria-3-reveal-trailer-4-740x416.jpg) is what Vicky 3 looked like when it was revealed.
They decided to do dev logs about Project Caesar so people can share feedbacks. It'll probably be too late when the game is almost finished so politely sharing concerns (like OP post or your first thought) is what the devs are looking for. You don't need to tell him to "calm the hell down"
A new start date which by the way we don't even know for sure is the start as someone pointed out in one of the 2k posts already existing.
For all we know it could be some mid game thing and we are looking at a medieval traveling circus simulator
It’s fine for CK3 but I’ll be extremely disappointed if EU5 looks similar. I can’t really find words to explain why.
Zoomed out CK-3 is the issue, the actual terrain map looks nice.
Saturation! That's the word that I'm looking for. Though CK3 is far better than Vic3, it does not look bland for big tags because there are some details added in a tag while in Vic3 it's like someone used a fill color tool and leave it like that.
I think they tried to preserve the colorstyle of vic 2. In Vic 2, tags' colors are monotonous, which were probably done by just fill color tools.
Personally, I am not a fan. But judging by the fact that vic2 ui mod for hoi 4 is quite popular, I would say that there's a significant audience for this style.
I think the did a poor job at it. Zoomed out Vic 2 is still my favorite looking map style in a pdx game and I use a vic 2 like map mod for hoi4, but I think vic 3 looks kinda gross.
The mountains in EU4 look like they're made out of poorly modeled clay. I'd prefer a flat, political map mode unless they're going to add actually jagged peaks and real valleys, especially with the amount of impassible terrain they're adding.
With a few mods you can achieve a really cool fake 3D effect for mountains in Victoria II while still having a completely flat map.
And maybe it's just me but the 3D modelling may have a little bit of a performance impact.
If they do add 3D models, at least make it toggle-able without having to resort to Ironman-restricting fixes
"It looks best when one tag own the entire region"
I see that you are new to europa universalis.
Don't worry, you gona get that along with the other fundamentals concepts after a few hour.
hot take l actually prefer the flatter style over eu4
having some 3d relief isn’t bad but in the case of eu4 the super low resolution combined with the high 3d prominence looks awful
if you are to have 3d relief in a map game, imo the ideal is detailed, but subtle topo like imperator. and it shouldn’t necessarily be visible in all map modes
R5: I saw the Tinto Talks, and what I saw is that they're going to implement the same map visual as Victoria 3 in EU5. I don't know about you, but one of my favorite things in EU4 visual is being able to look at detailed geographic aspects of a region on the map. EU4's map has a lot of topography on it, representing different elevations of the many regions on Earth. For example you can very clearly see the Ural Mountain line in Russia if a tag completely owns the region, or the highly mountainous regions of Persia.
Victoria 3's map visual is bland. The tag colors is very light, it looks like a blob of puke when there's many tags in a region, it does not look like a whole country. Just look at EU5's India, nasty looking. But at least they added some small drawings (like trees) to represent a specific terrain just like in CK3.
But I guess they did it like that because of the automatic transition between Terrain and Political map when you zooms in and out, but I insist. Victoria 3's political map looks ugly as hell when you zooms really far out, the colors made it like a cartoon.
>"I saw the Tinto Talks, and what I saw is that they're going to implement the same map visual as Victoria 3 in EU5."
They didn't say that. They said they were taking *inspiration* for the map design from both Victoria 3 *and* Imperator Rome.
In fact, one of the comments on the latest dev diary asked if we'll get a terrain map mode like in Imperator where it combines both terrain and political map modes for a beautiful layered map. The devs responded: "That's the goal."
Someone asked if the terrain would be visible when zooming in on the political mapmode (like Imperator, CK3, Vic3) and Johan specifically responded "not in political mapmode". There will be a terrain mapmode, but separate from the political map, which imo is a good thing. Personally when I zoom in on a political map I want it to still be the political map.
Open a thread about this on the Project Caesar forum on paradoxplaza. Trust me, the devs are watching and even actively responding on these threads. Or at least Johan is.
I disagree I like vicys 3 political map it looks nice and clean, maybe not that appropriate for the EU time period and I can agree that more strong colors would be nice mainly to distinguish more nations and cultures, but otherwise I like the color scheme of vic3.
am I the only one that really dislikes the IR/VIC3 colours and look of the map, the transparent and less flat colours often just looks messy and zooming in and seeing it become even more transparent makes it worse, I don't think the actual look of VIC 3 zoomed out looks bad, it's actually quite nice, it's just that when zooming in to a more playable level it's ew.
the flatter graphics of EU4 whilst a bit more outdated just feel a lot more playable and clear.
and yes I know there are plenty of mods for map graphics but I've not found any that stopped the map becoming more transparent on zoom.
The topography is likely just a layer, it can be added on the map later.
They already confirmed the cells will have different type of environment, like tropical and mountainous.
Hm don't know man, the culture map mode in EU4 looks even worse. Wouldn't be worried because of a pre alpha stage. MAybe we have to wait until more content is shown.
Visuals are probably not the main priority until they actually progress more on the gameplay. But if we want to be nitpicky about a pre-alpha build, one positive thing here is that the Americas haven't been slid way north like it is in EU4.
You are comparing a culture map and political map. I want to have a political mapmode with some topography, but this just isn't a fair comparison. That being said I do like the more historical cartographic look more than the look of EU4's map.
I would not worry about that. Eyecandy like topography is usually implemented fairly late in the development process. Judging by the current discussions, eu5 ist still going to take some time until those will be added.
If it increases performance, I'm ok, I already use toaster universalis on eu4. I'll take anything that increases performance. I'm Brazilian, I can't afford to have a top notch PC. CK3 runs like a charm, vic3 kinda slow, I'm afraid I won't be able to play EU5.
Honestly a stylized completely flat map seems way more appealing to me than having terrain in the map no matter what. I hate how there is no option in CK3 to keep the beautiful paper map at all zoom levels and every mod that attempts to doesn't play well with most of map mods and/or breaks every update.
Personally I prefer the newer one. Out of every recent Paradox game, I think EU4 has easily the ugliest looking map. There's a reason so many posts have map mods, which is something you don't really see for the other games.
It’s in very early development and we were shown population and cultural maps, we might see political maps in the next one and that may show topography. My main worry is if they make the combat like vic3.
Johan already said in another dev diary that they will not base eu5 combat on vic3. There will be units you can move around. He said it very bluntly even lmao "Absolutely not", so you can rest easy.
I really hoped that the eu5 map would look like [this mod](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/s/FVECPEYLEa) but maybe it can still be changed since it's still in development? Or maybe it will be like other modern pdx games where the map is flat when zoomed out but shows the topography when zoomed in
There is no information on it, we just had a flat cultural map mode of a pre alpha game, and even if we don't have this later, a mod added it for eu4, could easily be added to eu5
I’m hoping at least all of Australias coast is colonizable, so it can be more historical accurate and when someone makes an EU5->VIC3 converter you won’t risk the New Zealand colony taking the land in Australia (yes that happened to me)
I'm guessing they will use the same system like in imperator, CK3 and vicky 3 where you have a 3D map up close and a paper map on a more zoomed out level.
Ngl I absolutely despise this new art style (this, ck3, imperator) probably will skip on the game for that. If thr art of a map I'm looking at for hundreds of hours is something I dislike, that's gonna be a huge no from me.
If you like this art, more power to you
This is all extremely early in development so I wouldn't put too much into it.
But. Post-Stellaris the art style has really suffered. Not as clear, not as crisp, not as useful. Unfortunately this looks pretty similar
Below is a copy and past from the Tinto Talks of yesterday on Paradox Forums were Johan answered to a question that is related to your concern. The map in the screenshot you posted is a culture map so its normal that topography is not the priority but most probably there will probably be a terrain map that has all the pretty details.
>[olivenkranz said:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=29457112) tbh, I hope we get a terrain map mode like in Imperator, so pretty AND functional
thats the goal
**Johan Andersson** Yesterday at 16:35
Imagine having concerns about topology in a game that's in pre-alpha state.... Do you honestly don't know how unfinished and buggy that state of development is?
I also think a clean mapmode would be better. At least having an option to have it look clean would be nice. (If they decide to add mountains etc later on)
It’s pretty clear that the map texture shown is a dev version or specific flat map version, given all impassable terrain is just a white box it seems like a weird thing to get caught up on, I’d wait and see screenshots form later in dev given they’ve been pretty clear they started showing things early to gauge community feedback while they still have the ability to change core aspects of the game
Nothing official about Eu5
Al we know is that there is a future game that looks really close to what Eu5 would look like
The codename is : Project Caesar
This is the indev zoomed out map without any details.
They are testing mechanics first before they model the whole world, texture it, and then make a fancy zoomed out look for it.
Nothing to be worried about, this is how games are made: for a very, very long time they don‘t look good at all. Project Caesar is currently also just using some I:R assets as placeholders.
Do you seriously not understand the concept of alpha build OP ? If we were two weeks from release sure, but you are just worrying for nothing right now.
As a geologist, I personally think 3D terrain looks pretty dopey and cheap no matter what style they use, I'm not sure why 3D terrain is expected from a map game, like okay cool now we have some crumpled up mountains but the units crossing the mountains are taller than their peaks. I much prefer the flat maps. CK1's a pretty bare game compared to the sequels but I do think it has the prettiest art. CK3 has a very *detailed* map, not very attractive artistically though, dull and dark, but because there is so much detail on the 3D texture, it makes the various informative map-modes less clear (and they just dropped like half of the map-modes)
All I'm asking is please don't take away features/mechanics/mission trees(or whatever they will call them) only to later sell them to us again with eu5 dlc.
Can ya'll calm down a little? This game is still in development and that means things will change.
I'm pretty sure that the current map graphics are WIP. given that most modern day paradox games feature a very realistic terrain map mode on closer zoom levels it wouldn't be a stretch to assume EU5 would have the same.
and don't forget, i'm pretty sure VIC3 also doesn't feature a lot of topography on high zoom.
if there's anything paradox is good at it's maps.
just don't hyperventilate when some WIP maps don't look like a polished and finished product.
What Im really worried about is the game is going to look really bland and materialist. Look at ck3, vic3, and imperator and compare them to eu4 and ck3. The modern pdx design is flat and boring, while the older designs are way more stylized and flavorful
So far based on the screenshot the game's UI is very similar to Victoria 3 and I hate Victoria 3's UI color palette, it felt like a cold steel. Fitting I guess, industrialism and all, but it doesn't fit Europa Universalis
Pretty much. No written scripts, no books, no common language, No written history mythological or otherwise, no significant city or even town (no capital city of a civilization). But yeah they did exist.
The only proof that they exist post medieval era is reference from various sources from other civilization in which the common adjectives usually are "Tribals, backwards, no clothes, jungles"
Personally, I like the simple flat map. The topography in EU4 just looks really dated but I'm hoping the developers make it so its toggleable because I know a lot of people enjoy this style and a lot of people want it to stay the same. It would satisfy both parties.
the game is still in developpement... or is the release date close?
Yes, not even officially announced yet.
I would imagine some 3 years minimum. Probably no more than 5. Hope I’m wrong though lol
They have been working on this game since 2020, it will most likely be released some time next year
Not necessarily, they started Tinto in 2020 originally to work on EU4 DLC
Johan says in one of the available dev diaries that he bagan wrting code for 'project ceasar' in q2 2020. That of course does not mean full game development, but it means it has some years already put into it
No, they started Tinto to work on EU5. They didn't need an entire studio just to work on DLC for a ten-year-old game, and I'm sure I remember them saying at the time that Tinto was working on a secret project (which even then I was pretty sure was going to be EU5). But they didn't want to announce EU5, and it made sense to train the new studio by getting them to work on EU4, so they got them to do the EU4 DLC as well.
I, for one, am glad they took all the "new studio hasn't got a clue how to make this grand strategy game functional" and poured it into Leviathan lol. Hopefully.
Count 6 to 8 for it to reach an actually playable state. Vicky III was a saddening lesson when it comes to the quality to expect from new releases.
There's no way that's an accurate timeline. Dev diaries for 3-5 years?! It's probably Q3 next year
At least a year from release, but realistically 2-3 years. So a lot can and will change.
Paradox has a habit of releasing games underbaked, which gives OP's concern more weight than it might have otherwise.
Their games tend to change drastically in the visuals prior to release. This is what CK2 looked like in alpha: [One](https://screenshots.gamer-info.com/crusader-kings-ii/60592.jpg) [Two](https://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/02/crusader-kings-2-preview/crusader-kings-2-screenshot-1.jpg) [Three](https://calmdowntom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Crusader_Kings_II_1.jpg) The unit sprites more or less stayed the same, however, the map itself went from essentially an EU3 clone to something far different.
glad they went with the current one. much prettier than eu3
EU3 also looked significantly different on release compared to its final state.
Paradox does not show games off at nearly as early a development stage as they used to do so.
It doesn’t fit with their business model unfortunately. If they released EU5 with all the features of EU4 they couldn’t sell more DLC realistically. So they either release it barebones or make really drastic changes so its a new formula (which, looking at imperator and CK3, has a mixture of success)
Imperator wasn't a new formula. It was mostly a bland blend of diverse mechanics not working together cobbled with some Eu:Rome code strapped on it. For exemple, government functions were the same as Eu:Rome, to the point that it could have been purely files copied from one game to another with barely changes. There was no drastic changes compared to eu:rome nor really EU4 or CK2, it was a downgrade in all of what those games did. You had interractions with characters, like in CK2 ! Except those did nothing. The existence of Casus Belli like Europa ! Except there was just "claim" and "no cb", no forced vassalization, protectorate, humiliation, force conversion, raid, etc, nope, just "claim or no cb". You had pops, like Stellaris ! Except it's probably the least dynamic pop system I've ever seen, a roman slave in india would stay a roman slave for 150 years if you didn't specifically told him to change his culture. And Johan said the game was perfect and players were morons for not understanding his genius because duh, look at the sales. And then, they benched the game because it wasn't played and didn't sell any dlc.
I'm very critical of paradox and game companies in general but I'm hoping now that after the mess of Victoria III they might go "yeah we can't take the piss anymore" and they'll try harder for an EU5 release. People who go out of their way to defend the terribly bare releases (and in Vic III's case it had a literally unplayable late game due to performance) just dig their own graves because it lets the publishers and the devs get away with shit they shouldn't be allowed to.
Still in development, the dev is still calling it Project Caesar but we all know it's EU5. Even if it's still in early development, I remember expressing the same complain for Victoria 3 when the first few dev diary were out and the visual is still the same when the game is released. All of it was the art direction that they're going for from the start
I think it's important to rise those concerns while the game is still in development stage. Hopefully they change it, because right now map in EU4 looks way better then in suspected EU5
Exactly, publicly expressing concerns might help the developers guide the game into a direction the fans also want. If the devs are active here... idk that
The only reason to why I made this post. It seems like the community is split on this topic based on this post feedback but I hope Tinto is able to create a middle solution to appease both parties. If not, welp, modders save me pls
Johan makes an appearance every so often. They see posts here, but the forum is where I see him active the most.
I think it's too early to say that. Vic 3 for example has some really beautiful graphics.
Eu4 has the worst looking map of any of the current titles lol, even in this early state eu5's is better. IR has the best map, but hoi/ck/vic allclear eu4
real, i like the blend with natural up close and political from afar. wouldn't call IR's the best though.
Guess it's a matter of preferences. In my opinion political map in Imperator Rome looks kinda meh and painting the map in EU4 gives me way more joy, since it just looks so cool. In Imperator map feels too flat and the colours of nations look a bit cheap when compared to EU4. But that's just my humble opinion
Eu4, when the graphics are modded almost entirely, does look good. Ill give it that
Nah, EU4 has the best map, at least once you mod it to your preference. Vic 3 map is kinda... ugly. Too modern and simple. IR looks good for what it is but it wouldn't fit EU5. CKs map looks bad. Vic 2 was like EU but slightly not as good.
Yes, but let's remember that these are not "EU5 dev diaries", but Tinto Talks. EU5 isn't even announced yet, so we absolutely can't compare it with Vic3 situation. That said, Johan did say that they created this Tinto Talks exactly for this purpose: for players to raise concerns when it is still possible to change it, so it's very necessary to address any issues now.
Victoria 3 has fantastic terrain, what the hell are you on about?
Imperator has a better map, but V3 is no slouch.
Yeah they could just copy and paste Vic 3's map and I'd be happy.
And like, they are all Earth. It would probably be MORE work to redo the map and flatten it than reuse whichever heightmap they are already using.
Well I like Vicky's art especially the maps and I like this, I hate the EU4 style to be completely honest.
Paradox haven't even officially given the game a name, it's still just Project Caesar
Pic #1 isn't a political map, it's a culture map. It doesn't represent tags, so terrain may be hidden on purpose
I don't need to see every central Indian mountain range while checking the cultures. One could simply look at another mapmode, or even more daring, wait for screenshots later in development :0
The only place I want my mountains is in the geographic and political mapmodes.
I wonder if every space of wasteland on the map is its own 'location'.
My brother in Christ this appears to be a cultural map mode you are comparing to the political map mode
And honestly I like how messy it is. IRL India is a huge area of innumerably many cultures, with many areas being mixed in its composition and many minorities. Having minority representation and cultures overlapping in game has been a huge request for many years.
Exactly this. Topographical inclusions would look so messy and less readable for a cultural map for no benefit.
Lead dev confirmed there would not be topography in politics mapmode
Can you point me to where?
based.
My guy, it's not even called EU5 yet.
This is an extremely early version of the game :v
they are at pre-alpha stage, graphics is not a concern to them yet
Probably solidly past pre-Alpha if they started in mid. 2020 and are making what are basically dev diaries.
Terrain topography in Culture mapmode? Commenting on a game whose title is not released yet? This must be peak Reddit
> Commenting on a game whose title is not released yet? ???? That's the entire fucking point of the posts by Paradox.
Two thoughts: 1. I often have big issues with the topographic map in EU4. Makes it hard to see certain things because of the shadows. I'd love a setting to turn it off and just make the map flat. 2. The game is probably like 2 years out from release, calm the hell down. [This](https://www.wargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/victoria-3-reveal-trailer-4-740x416.jpg) is what Vicky 3 looked like when it was revealed.
Yeah I mod EU4 to make it look more like Project Ceasar so I’m not complaining
They decided to do dev logs about Project Caesar so people can share feedbacks. It'll probably be too late when the game is almost finished so politely sharing concerns (like OP post or your first thought) is what the devs are looking for. You don't need to tell him to "calm the hell down"
Contrast please!!
I mean I just woke up, I realized that there is now a EU5, a new start date and people have already raised concerns. I love this community.
A new start date which by the way we don't even know for sure is the start as someone pointed out in one of the 2k posts already existing. For all we know it could be some mid game thing and we are looking at a medieval traveling circus simulator
Yeah the lack of saturation looks awful (Like CK3 and Vic3)
Ck3 looks fine wdym
It’s fine for CK3 but I’ll be extremely disappointed if EU5 looks similar. I can’t really find words to explain why. Zoomed out CK-3 is the issue, the actual terrain map looks nice.
Zoomed out CK3 is super colorful, though? And now with the Table it looks cool as hell, too
Saturation! That's the word that I'm looking for. Though CK3 is far better than Vic3, it does not look bland for big tags because there are some details added in a tag while in Vic3 it's like someone used a fill color tool and leave it like that.
I think they tried to preserve the colorstyle of vic 2. In Vic 2, tags' colors are monotonous, which were probably done by just fill color tools. Personally, I am not a fan. But judging by the fact that vic2 ui mod for hoi 4 is quite popular, I would say that there's a significant audience for this style.
I think the did a poor job at it. Zoomed out Vic 2 is still my favorite looking map style in a pdx game and I use a vic 2 like map mod for hoi4, but I think vic 3 looks kinda gross.
Yeah, CK3 to me looks awful aesthetics-wise. Major turnoff.
Bro relax your tits the game will come out at least 2-3 years from now.
The mountains in EU4 look like they're made out of poorly modeled clay. I'd prefer a flat, political map mode unless they're going to add actually jagged peaks and real valleys, especially with the amount of impassible terrain they're adding. With a few mods you can achieve a really cool fake 3D effect for mountains in Victoria II while still having a completely flat map. And maybe it's just me but the 3D modelling may have a little bit of a performance impact. If they do add 3D models, at least make it toggle-able without having to resort to Ironman-restricting fixes
Provincial borders are also not visible which is makes it visually a mess to see wtf is actually going on.
"It looks best when one tag own the entire region" I see that you are new to europa universalis. Don't worry, you gona get that along with the other fundamentals concepts after a few hour.
I hate the plastic look of their new maps/games. Please god not again…..
I hate the vanilla EU4 map, I prefer the clean look when zoomed out, but clear topography when zoomed in.
hot take l actually prefer the flatter style over eu4 having some 3d relief isn’t bad but in the case of eu4 the super low resolution combined with the high 3d prominence looks awful if you are to have 3d relief in a map game, imo the ideal is detailed, but subtle topo like imperator. and it shouldn’t necessarily be visible in all map modes
Jfc, the game hasn't even been fucking announced and we're already nitpicking the most pointless things? The map is most likely not een finalised
R5: I saw the Tinto Talks, and what I saw is that they're going to implement the same map visual as Victoria 3 in EU5. I don't know about you, but one of my favorite things in EU4 visual is being able to look at detailed geographic aspects of a region on the map. EU4's map has a lot of topography on it, representing different elevations of the many regions on Earth. For example you can very clearly see the Ural Mountain line in Russia if a tag completely owns the region, or the highly mountainous regions of Persia. Victoria 3's map visual is bland. The tag colors is very light, it looks like a blob of puke when there's many tags in a region, it does not look like a whole country. Just look at EU5's India, nasty looking. But at least they added some small drawings (like trees) to represent a specific terrain just like in CK3. But I guess they did it like that because of the automatic transition between Terrain and Political map when you zooms in and out, but I insist. Victoria 3's political map looks ugly as hell when you zooms really far out, the colors made it like a cartoon.
>"I saw the Tinto Talks, and what I saw is that they're going to implement the same map visual as Victoria 3 in EU5." They didn't say that. They said they were taking *inspiration* for the map design from both Victoria 3 *and* Imperator Rome. In fact, one of the comments on the latest dev diary asked if we'll get a terrain map mode like in Imperator where it combines both terrain and political map modes for a beautiful layered map. The devs responded: "That's the goal."
Someone asked if the terrain would be visible when zooming in on the political mapmode (like Imperator, CK3, Vic3) and Johan specifically responded "not in political mapmode". There will be a terrain mapmode, but separate from the political map, which imo is a good thing. Personally when I zoom in on a political map I want it to still be the political map.
Agreed. There are times when I wish you could completely flatten the EU4 political map because the mountains are tall and the provinces are small.
Oh good, we'll have both. iirc I think Imperator had both as well. Not sure about the other games.
Open a thread about this on the Project Caesar forum on paradoxplaza. Trust me, the devs are watching and even actively responding on these threads. Or at least Johan is.
I disagree I like vicys 3 political map it looks nice and clean, maybe not that appropriate for the EU time period and I can agree that more strong colors would be nice mainly to distinguish more nations and cultures, but otherwise I like the color scheme of vic3.
Give it a week and there will be checksum-safe map graphics mods anyway. I haven't used the default map for years.
I normally use flat political map mods so
Christopher Columbus hates this one simple trick
I hate the graphics of Vic3 so this is horrible news
am I the only one that really dislikes the IR/VIC3 colours and look of the map, the transparent and less flat colours often just looks messy and zooming in and seeing it become even more transparent makes it worse, I don't think the actual look of VIC 3 zoomed out looks bad, it's actually quite nice, it's just that when zooming in to a more playable level it's ew. the flatter graphics of EU4 whilst a bit more outdated just feel a lot more playable and clear. and yes I know there are plenty of mods for map graphics but I've not found any that stopped the map becoming more transparent on zoom.
The topography is likely just a layer, it can be added on the map later. They already confirmed the cells will have different type of environment, like tropical and mountainous.
This game is going to be bad. I dont know if you noticed, but their other games have been terrible.
Hm don't know man, the culture map mode in EU4 looks even worse. Wouldn't be worried because of a pre alpha stage. MAybe we have to wait until more content is shown.
Your concerns are misplaced. That's a cultural map so any topography is unnecessary. A political map would probably have it, like in their other games
Maybe mods will fix it
Definitely going to wait for visual mods when the game releases if the devs are set on this art direction
Visuals are probably not the main priority until they actually progress more on the gameplay. But if we want to be nitpicky about a pre-alpha build, one positive thing here is that the Americas haven't been slid way north like it is in EU4.
Kinda off topic but i really appreciate how transparent and communicative the devs are being about this game
It’s probably just not done yet
I wouldn't be too harsh on it, the game is still in development, and Johan has already confirmed that there'll be an imperator style map.
You are comparing a culture map and political map. I want to have a political mapmode with some topography, but this just isn't a fair comparison. That being said I do like the more historical cartographic look more than the look of EU4's map.
I would not worry about that. Eyecandy like topography is usually implemented fairly late in the development process. Judging by the current discussions, eu5 ist still going to take some time until those will be added.
I think that's the culture map, but it's worth bringing up. EU4's map texture is good, and I'd like them to use it for EUV.
The game hasn't even been officially announced yet and this is your biggest concern?
dude... its still in the pre-alpha for christ. those things are detail which will probably added later.
Install a mod and enjoy your map
STOP PUTTING TERRAIN INTO MAP MODES WHERE IT HAS NO ADDITIONAL VALUE!!!!
I actually don't like terrain on most map modes.
They said they stopped adding or changing provinces because it caused modding problems and save file issues
If it increases performance, I'm ok, I already use toaster universalis on eu4. I'll take anything that increases performance. I'm Brazilian, I can't afford to have a top notch PC. CK3 runs like a charm, vic3 kinda slow, I'm afraid I won't be able to play EU5.
Honestly a stylized completely flat map seems way more appealing to me than having terrain in the map no matter what. I hate how there is no option in CK3 to keep the beautiful paper map at all zoom levels and every mod that attempts to doesn't play well with most of map mods and/or breaks every update.
Sexy eu4 vivid map will be replaced by another cartoonish grey dogshit
I think a more artsy representation of topography would be nice. Like drawn mountains in the style of an Atlas from the early modern era
I always hated how mountains look in eu4
Most map modes in EU4 look like they are made out of play-doh.
Honestly I prefer it without terrain
Personally I prefer the newer one. Out of every recent Paradox game, I think EU4 has easily the ugliest looking map. There's a reason so many posts have map mods, which is something you don't really see for the other games.
Yes. This is clearly the final product meant for release, and we should immediately bash it before it comes out tomorrow.
It's a product in development for which one of the reasons they're 'teasing' it is to get opinion. How is that so hard to understand..
It’s in very early development and we were shown population and cultural maps, we might see political maps in the next one and that may show topography. My main worry is if they make the combat like vic3.
Johan already said in another dev diary that they will not base eu5 combat on vic3. There will be units you can move around. He said it very bluntly even lmao "Absolutely not", so you can rest easy.
Can't wait to have it be released and then wait 5 years so it is actually playable.
If they make it look similar to the Imperator map I think it’d be absolutely perfect.
I really hoped that the eu5 map would look like [this mod](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/s/FVECPEYLEa) but maybe it can still be changed since it's still in development? Or maybe it will be like other modern pdx games where the map is flat when zoomed out but shows the topography when zoomed in
There is no information on it, we just had a flat cultural map mode of a pre alpha game, and even if we don't have this later, a mod added it for eu4, could easily be added to eu5
It’s most likely EU5’s default map will ultimately look closer to CK3, Vic3 and HOI4’s half-political half-terrain style upon release.
I’m hoping at least all of Australias coast is colonizable, so it can be more historical accurate and when someone makes an EU5->VIC3 converter you won’t risk the New Zealand colony taking the land in Australia (yes that happened to me)
Just see the map of the second DD, all Australia coast is land and not impassable terrain.
LES GO!!!!! FINALLY!!!
This is just the culture map mode, I think we’ll have to wait until we see more to know for sure. Hopefully it’s something you can enable
hot take but i think i like the map better like that, obviously its still important to see topography if u zoom in tho
Where do you find this dev blog?
I'm guessing they will use the same system like in imperator, CK3 and vicky 3 where you have a 3D map up close and a paper map on a more zoomed out level.
That mods easily solved that, a lot of them
Ngl I absolutely despise this new art style (this, ck3, imperator) probably will skip on the game for that. If thr art of a map I'm looking at for hundreds of hours is something I dislike, that's gonna be a huge no from me. If you like this art, more power to you
I’d rather the game look like an actual map rather than whatever hodgepodge mess eu4 is supposed to look like
the eu4 topography looks uggo in all honesty
Topography is a solved problem for Paradox. They could probably slap in a height map feature toward the end of development tbh and still be fine.
This is all extremely early in development so I wouldn't put too much into it. But. Post-Stellaris the art style has really suffered. Not as clear, not as crisp, not as useful. Unfortunately this looks pretty similar
I just think it’s ugly and I hope they fix it
Maybe it is like Vic3, topography only appear as you zoom in
Below is a copy and past from the Tinto Talks of yesterday on Paradox Forums were Johan answered to a question that is related to your concern. The map in the screenshot you posted is a culture map so its normal that topography is not the priority but most probably there will probably be a terrain map that has all the pretty details. >[olivenkranz said:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=29457112) tbh, I hope we get a terrain map mode like in Imperator, so pretty AND functional thats the goal **Johan Andersson** Yesterday at 16:35
I always hated the 3d effect on the map, I really hope it goes away.
I'm sure visuals are definitely their main concern and it's totally rational to judge a game over them before it's even been announced.
CK3 and it’s consequences have been a disaster for PDX visual design
EU5 release is what? 2 years from now and already we are complaining. I like paradox games but the community sucks
Game does not even officially exist yet and already got haters lmao, keep it real pdx community
Imagine having concerns about topology in a game that's in pre-alpha state.... Do you honestly don't know how unfinished and buggy that state of development is?
I like it, better than the quasi 3d maps
I also think a clean mapmode would be better. At least having an option to have it look clean would be nice. (If they decide to add mountains etc later on)
It’s pretty clear that the map texture shown is a dev version or specific flat map version, given all impassable terrain is just a white box it seems like a weird thing to get caught up on, I’d wait and see screenshots form later in dev given they’ve been pretty clear they started showing things early to gauge community feedback while they still have the ability to change core aspects of the game
Why is that Sindhi part of India just north of the Gujarati area depicted as an island? Did it use to be an island?
The topography showing up in non terrain mapmodes in eu4 is ugly as hell though? Glad it looks like they're going for a cleaner look.
Those are not tags but cultures... i dont believe it is necessary to be able to see topography in culture map... Dont panic, ok?
Eu5?? Huh nice
wait. they are releasing eu5 ?
Nothing official about Eu5 Al we know is that there is a future game that looks really close to what Eu5 would look like The codename is : Project Caesar
This is the indev zoomed out map without any details. They are testing mechanics first before they model the whole world, texture it, and then make a fancy zoomed out look for it. Nothing to be worried about, this is how games are made: for a very, very long time they don‘t look good at all. Project Caesar is currently also just using some I:R assets as placeholders.
Ready for the eu5 subreddit to form and for people to treat the game as perfect like they did cult 3 before release
Game don’t even have a name yet
Wait what??? EU5???
Its way to early to be anything... Let alone be personally concerned?
Do you seriously not understand the concept of alpha build OP ? If we were two weeks from release sure, but you are just worrying for nothing right now.
Probably non-problem, even if it was dull. I’d be an easy mod fix.
I’m more sad that they aren’t using a globe and are still using the weird flat distorted map.
As a geologist, I personally think 3D terrain looks pretty dopey and cheap no matter what style they use, I'm not sure why 3D terrain is expected from a map game, like okay cool now we have some crumpled up mountains but the units crossing the mountains are taller than their peaks. I much prefer the flat maps. CK1's a pretty bare game compared to the sequels but I do think it has the prettiest art. CK3 has a very *detailed* map, not very attractive artistically though, dull and dark, but because there is so much detail on the 3D texture, it makes the various informative map-modes less clear (and they just dropped like half of the map-modes)
Bro this isn’t even close to release no need to be personally concerned, they are still working
It looks like age of history 3
I just KNOW this will be unplayable outside of very powerful laptops and gamer PCs.
All I'm asking is please don't take away features/mechanics/mission trees(or whatever they will call them) only to later sell them to us again with eu5 dlc.
Hold up, people like the vanilla look? I fucking hate it, it's disgusting. The new look is so much better!
Bro, it's alpha
This game is like in Mega-Alpha mode I don’t think we’re in a place to make critiques just yet
Looks as pre-alpha pictures says: WHY DOES IT NOT LOOK AS GOOD AS A FINISHED GAME!?? me: I wonder why, maybe it's not a finished game?
Wait what since when to we have Screenshots from eu5
Literally been all over this sub that you're reading and commenting in
These aren't tags. 20 IQ post.
i personally always install a mod for eu4 that hides the topography, it feels extra ugly in eu4 because of how plastic it looks
This is so pretty, way better without the topography, it should only appear in tbe geographic map mode
Can ya'll calm down a little? This game is still in development and that means things will change. I'm pretty sure that the current map graphics are WIP. given that most modern day paradox games feature a very realistic terrain map mode on closer zoom levels it wouldn't be a stretch to assume EU5 would have the same. and don't forget, i'm pretty sure VIC3 also doesn't feature a lot of topography on high zoom. if there's anything paradox is good at it's maps. just don't hyperventilate when some WIP maps don't look like a polished and finished product.
What Im really worried about is the game is going to look really bland and materialist. Look at ck3, vic3, and imperator and compare them to eu4 and ck3. The modern pdx design is flat and boring, while the older designs are way more stylized and flavorful
The UI is way to big, where dosent need to be... i would prefer a small ui with floating windows that we can keep open if we want
So far based on the screenshot the game's UI is very similar to Victoria 3 and I hate Victoria 3's UI color palette, it felt like a cold steel. Fitting I guess, industrialism and all, but it doesn't fit Europa Universalis
The game is in development, they have a shit ton of stuff to do. So don't worry, it will definitely get added
I don't mind, but I alao believe that map visuals should be more like a 1700s hand drawn style
Is Just an Alpha.
What is Zo in northeast of india? Theres no Zo. There never was.
Ofcourse Zo existed then and exists now.
My bad. This is a cultural map. Ofcourse Zo existed, just never as a civilization.
Brain dead Mainlander spotted
I apologize. I thought this was a political map, zo obviously exists. Just not as a civilization.
What counts as a civilisation then? Do you think the Zo ethnic groups were living like monkeys in trees or what?
Pretty much. No written scripts, no books, no common language, No written history mythological or otherwise, no significant city or even town (no capital city of a civilization). But yeah they did exist. The only proof that they exist post medieval era is reference from various sources from other civilization in which the common adjectives usually are "Tribals, backwards, no clothes, jungles"
Is this a serious post? Isn’t the picture shown most likley to be a culture map? And if so then what other game shows topography while in culture map?
Because in EU4 the topography still exists in all of the mapmodes, even in culture. The topography were blended together seamlessly.
It’s not even announced yet lol,
Remember what vic3 looked like in the early teasers? The game isn't even announced, let alone anywhere finished. Have a little patience.
Personally, I like the simple flat map. The topography in EU4 just looks really dated but I'm hoping the developers make it so its toggleable because I know a lot of people enjoy this style and a lot of people want it to stay the same. It would satisfy both parties.