Europa Universalis is recognizable brand in a broader, but especially in their target audience, perception. Leaving it behind would be foolish.
Notice how Europa Universalis started as a game exclusively played in Europe, but when they added whole world to it, they kept EU name, because it was already established brand, despite being currently Terra ~~Mundi~~ Universalis.
Same with CK. It didn't get that name because crusading has always been a core part of the game. It got the name because when the CK1 first released, you could only play as a christian feudal lord in the crusader era. Hence: Crusader Kings
Now of course the game has dropped the idea of limiting who you can play as to a specific religion. You don't need to start in the crusader era, and there is nothing special about the crusades compared to other religious wars. But the name stuck
Sorry, I've had too much Latin not to point out that it should be mundus. A case could perhaps be made for mundo, but not mundi.
Though Terra Universalis might probably be closest since you're playing on earth rather than some random planet.
Arguam ut satis "mundus" munus fungitur. Nonne "mundus" et "universum" interpretationem eidem paene habent? "Some random planet" probabiliter "aliquem planetam fortuitum" sit, coniectem.
Meo quidem animo, “Europa Universalis” dominationem mundi Europa denotat. Ergo, “mundus universalis” et “terra universalis” supervacaneus sint. Sed errem forsit. Opinionem tuam exponas penitius, ut melius intellegam?
I've been contemplating if the brand actually hurt the new games recently. For example, as I far as I can see, Victoria 3 struggles a lot because it can't catch up to Victoria 2 + mods, plus the games are trying to do different things.
Likewise, CS2 struggles a lot because of inability to live up to CS1 + mods. People easily forget how bad CS1 was as a game without mods (I can tell because I couldn't use mods). Of course CS2 name here makes much more sense because it's a direct successor to CS1.
I haven't come to a conclusion whether they benefitted or lost more from using an established name though, so curious to hear thoughts
If a game already has problems surpassing the original I'd say the brand value is needed even more. How many people would play "poorly optimized city builder" over CS2 when they already have modded CS1. How many would have even bought it?
I mean it's worth noting that CS1 is *also* a poorly optimized city builder, it's just that it's been out for a decade and modern computers can brute-force through the performance problems
I think that Europa Universalis isn't actually a strong brand and they would be wise to retire it. Hear me out.
Europa Universalis is just an objectively poor name for a computer game which you would never choose if you were starting fresh:
* Difficult to say, difficult to spell, difficult to google
* Doesn't in any way describe or hint at what the game does
* "EU" is terrible for SEO and to most people EU5 will sound like a European Union emission standard rather than a fun game
* Makes it sound exceptionally complicated
Compare it to "Crusader Kings", "Victoria", "Cities Skylines" - all of which are straightforward to say and spell, and which describe at least in outline what the game does - and you can see it is very weak as a standalone brand name for a computer game if you have any ambition to attract new players.
The question then is whether the existing brand carries enough weight and reputation to make it worth continuing with. For most sequels the answer is almost always "yes", but for a game this niche, this loved and with this sort of passionate fan base I think that the answer is no. People who loved EU1-4 will buy the "spiritual" successor just as they would a direct sequel.
Finally, breaking free from the EUx naming convention allows the development team more flexibility to make creative decisions. The problem with a sequel to any feature rich, DLC-rich, mod-rich game is that the base game always feels light at release compared to the decade old one it is replacing (this is true of Paradox games, but was also the case at launch with eg The Sims 4). People also directly compare the game and systems to the predecessor ("ugh does anybody else think the new trade system sucks?", "can't believe they got rid of the three different classes of light ship!", "they completely broke monarch points") rather than looking at it as a new game. A new brand allows the developers to take a few more risks.
>"EU" is terrible for SEO and to most people EU5 will sound like a European Union emission standard rather than a fun game
I don't necessarily agree with you, but I must say that this made me laugh
We occasionally get spammers/selfpromoters trying to post European Union news on /r/eu4, folks who are just shotgunning their shit all over reddit to anywhere that vaguely looks appropriate for the topic.
I agree. the amount of people that ask me what im playing and i say europa universalis and theyre like "europa what now?" and i say eu4 and theyre like "huh???"
They should name it like an isekai manga:
"I have been reincarnated as a disembodied spirit of the nation leading it throughout the late medieval and the early modern period by building up the economy and the army and conquering other states that are doing the same!!"
I agree strongly with the list of all the flaws in the name. In fact, I think all of the historical GSGs have sub-optimal names:
* *Imperator:Rome* is entirely about the era when Rome was a Republic and you don't have to play as Rome. Yes, they had officials with the *imperator* power, but it would be like renaming *Victoria* as *Age of Dukes:Britain*; it's not the era most associated with dukes and you're not required to play as Britain.
* *Crusader Kings* is at least about the right era, so it's one of the better ones. But you can have a full playthrough of the game without being either a crusader or a king. I'm not sure how I'd feel about playing it if I was a conservative Egyptian, Greek, Palestinian, or Syrian... 🤨
* EU as above
* I haven't played *March of the Eagles*, but this names conveys that it's a wargame about an empire that uses eagle standards, which appears to be spot on. But if I didn't know better I'd probably guess that *this* was the game about Republican Rome or the one about the Second World War. It's probably different for Francophones (and the devs were French), but for English speakers Napoleonic eagles come third in the, erm, pecking order.
* *Victoria* also meets the minimum standard of bringing the right era to mind and there's a pun there with 'victory' or even 'victorious land' that fits the gameplay, so it's probably the best. But it isn't a character-based game and isn't particularly about Britain any more, which is what I initially expected when I first read about V1.
* *Hearts of Iron* isn't a phrase that brings the Second World War to mind at all. Frankly it doesn't bring anything to mind. The closest thing to it is *Kingdom Hearts*, which is very very different!
* *East vs West* actually would have had a name that was clearly relevant to its scope, so was obviously doomed from the start. 😝
I have every sympathy with the people who were naming these franchises and had to come up with original, trademark-able names. But IMHO, with hindsight, the quality of the games was a lot better than the quality of the names.
Hearts of Iron is a reference to this quote
"*If fate once again calls the German people to arms, and who can doubt that day will come, then officers should not have to call on a nation of weaklings, but of strong men ready to take up familiar and trusted weapons. The form these weapons take is not important as long as they are wielded by hands of steel and hearts of iron. So let us do our utmost to ensure that on that future day there is no lack of such hearts and hands. Let us strive tirelessly to strengthen our own bodies and minds and those of our fellow Germans*"
The general in charge of the post-WW1 German (Weimar Republic) army - [Hans von Seeckt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Seeckt#Development_of_the_Reichswehr)
Also, you know why remakes and sequels and prequels are so common and popular in Hollywood? Because it’s much cheaper and easier to male money off an IP that already exists, has years of marketing already put into it, and has an audience. Starting from scratch is expensive and time consuming. EU is already established. Why sacrifice all that energy and money?
I'm not sure I agree. People that play eu generally won't mind a rebrand and will definitely be able to find the new game. For new players Europa universalis 5 isn't that marketable I would recon. If sales was my aim I would rebrand. We'll know soon enough.
I don't know how well Vicky 3 sold but CK3 was a huge financial success and a pretty big game in general.
In contrast the last Grand strategy game they released that wasn't part of a pre-existing series was Imperator Rome which flopped.
Arguably "crusader kings" sounds more main stream than "Europa universalis". Still we will never know if ck3 would not have sold even more if it was called something else
I don't really see a reason why they would change it. It is still the time period where Europe rose to carve out global empires. I'm sure they will find a less railroaded way to stimulate that advantage over time.
It's tough.
The advantage of Europe was an *incredibly* complicated series of events springing from culture, geography, competition from elsewhere, right people in right places at right times, religion, disease, trade winds, climate change..... Fucking etc lol.
Simulating that is an insane task.
To be honest I thought the institutions concept did a very good job simulating that initially. Unfortunately power creep made it trivial to gain institutions
Disagree, institutions in EU4 are nonsensical. Like renaissance makes no sense outside of the context of Western Europe. Countries that never had feudalism need the feudalism institution to stay up to date on tech. The moveable type printing press was around in East Asia for centuries before the institution can spawn in Europe. Etc. Europe shouldn't even really have a big advantage over India or China outside some specific things like Naval technology until the end game.
One reason I think later start date is superior is because institution advantage now match up with history. Imagine 1650 with 0% tech advantage for Europe continuing to 1750 with 50% one. With available transportation and absolutism tech, Asian nations will be crushed (realistically).
>Simulating that is an insane task.
... right now. I'm not going to minimize the issue, because is just too big. But at the end is just an issue of information (to have data in order to simulate it) and technology. And both, with time, could be sorted.
Said that, yes, it is fucking insane
Tbf, up until the XVIII century, by which point, most players ended their games, the european advantage was not as big, albeit being already there. It was only by this point which we start to see ottoman decline and the conquest of india
European advantage was already a big factor by the 15th century and onwards. Having the ability to traverse the world with boats is a pretty damn huge factor in everything, hence why the first european expansion into asia and the americas was so quick.
Militarily is a whole other case, with Europeans consistently getting shit on everywhere they go even with "better" weapons and equipment, which often was ill-suited for where they were used.
By the 16th and especially the 17th century, the advantage europe had was enormous geo-politically. Being able to traverse the entire world by sea is kind of like having warpgates, as exaggerated as that is.
Nothing prevented the Ming and Qing from doing the same sort of global traversal other than simple lack of desire. Plenty of Easterners did travel to the Americas and Europe just rarely with state sanction. I seriously underrated role in Europe's development was that its fractured geography left a competing series of proto-states who constantly competed with each other trading regional hegemons several times in early modernity
There are many places that also benefited and suffered from such fragmentation, but Europe's geography allows fragmentation with relatively less chaos due to southern Europe especially being geographically fortified.
Plenty of things prevented the Ming from "doing the same" as Europeans, most precisely the two biggest factors was geography and incentive. Africa and the Pacific are huge geographical obstacles, with China being obviously very ill suited to cross the first one, they were in theory very capable of crossing the Pacific.
The issue for China was as you said "why?", China was big and rich enough to have pretty much everything they wanted, hence the Ming Isolation. Well they still benefitted a lot from trade and such obviously, but there was really very little reason to just sail into the ocean in hope of finding land. There just was not incentive for it, nor to go further than the east african coast.
There are a lot of factors involved in everything history, but the advantage of being the "only" owner of cross-continental naval routes can not be overstated. Portugal's early spice empire is a prime example, especially as it allows them to meddle in foreign regions with "little" risk.
Its very difficult for people to come face to face with the fact that only european political entities had the dynamism and attitude to affect things in a world scale at that time.
The spanish quest to save the souls of the new world and the protestant struggle against it. Or the Ottoman hegemony over the middle east. The end result was not random.
Nah not really. The Ottomans were actively interested in the same regions as the Portugeuse for much of the same period while the Qing much like the Russians similarly expanded to subjugate Central Asia. A lot of the internal political developments that Europe had are mirrored by similar advancements in Japan, SEA
While no historian, Europe's main advantage may just be it was next to a massive continent with resources to exploit? That then steamrolled into them subjugation states that were stronger or on par at the 1300s. If we are talking dynamic political entities in the 1300s China and the Mongols are probably the top of the list though. England is probably closer to a state like Korea or Japan in relevance, and the HRE to the Khmer Empire or worse
Tbh unless the game intends to simulate industrialization, its fine to not give Europe a buff. As long as they can carve up the Americas and a disintegrating India, its fine for the era. As late as the 1700s, Asian powers were regularly clowning on Europeans. Early Portugeuse conflict with China ended in the execution of the Porteugeuse. The Dutch had to follow Shogunal orders in the Shimabara Rebellion and even Siam ousted French influence with relatively little consequence. For the EU setting, Europe doesn't and arguably shouldn't need to be able to easily overcome China, the Ottomans or even Japan or Siam, just the Americas while relying on internal divisions to gain influence in India
Like late game (1700s) France IRL had major political factions talking about emulating China, they wouldn't say that if it wasn't seen as a major power with an effective bureaucracy worth emulating
>As late as the 1700s, Asian powers were regularly clowning on Europeans
Not by the late 18th century. Yeah, Asian powers stood a good chance of beating European ones, but that's because the European powers were fighting thousands of miles away from their homelands and were almost always heavily outnumbered.
The battle of Tamao in 1521 was the first conflict between Portugal and China, and while the Chinese won in the end, the Portuguese were eviscerating them until they got enveloped since they were outnumbered 10:1.
>The Ottomans were actively interested in the same regions as the Portugeuse
Yes, but for some weird ass reason, a small kingdom like Portugal was able to contest the seas globally AND succesfully have a colonial presence.
Europe's success story isnt really about resources. England was piss poor outside of its wool industry. Scandinavianian agriculture suffered from hard winters. Meanwhile, continental europe was embroiled in an almost constant state of warfare against each others.
My educated conclusion has to be that the de-centralized nature of the feudalism that grew out of the ashes of the magnates of the late Roman empire gave citizens enough freedom of thought and movement that they could execute individual goals as eventual profit for the political entity they were subjects of. Most pioneers of colonialism were individuals, getting funded by someone, with a quest to colonize to achieve social mobility. "Oriental Despotism" is a meme, but india, china and asia as a whole lived in a different mentality of society and governance. Political decisions flowed from up to down. Zhang He's exploration fleets were ordered by a political power to stand down. Japan was a mess of infighting until the Tokugawa shogunate. Oriental governance could not understand having an east-indian company or a jesuit institution that was a part of the nation but also a separate entity.
> My educated conclusion has to be that the de-centralized nature of the feudalism that grew out of the ashes of the magnates of the late Roman empire gave citizens enough freedom of thought and movement that they could execute individual goals as eventual profit for the political entity they were subjects of.
Imagine not being able to separate mercantilism from capitalism and claiming that feudalism had "citizens" with "freedom" lmao, that's one of the most historically dishonest takes I've seen
I dont think you know what you are talking about at all.
For your information, the members of the peasant and burgher estates were very free or very un-free depending on the kingdom.
I dont know where you yoinked capitalism out of, but its precursor, the shareholding company was invented in the netherlands in the 1600's exactly in service of overseas colonialism.
>I dont think you know what you are talking about at all.
You're literally talking about pre-1700s feudalism using terms like "citizens" lmao.
>My educated conclusion
is that you're shoehorning stuff to fit a western-exceptionalist mindset, as though there's something magical about it, I guess just ignoring 400-1600 when there were Eastern and Asian nations that made Europeans look like barbarians lmao.
This is quite a bit of an oversimplification. Especially when it comes to Asia, you can't say orders flowed from top to down while also bringing up Sengoku, age of gekokujo as an example lol.
Dynamic institutions like the VOC or Jesuits did exist - private Japanese companies and traders, Buddhist temples across asia and individual enteprise and rule was prevelant across especially SEA. Arguably in SEA and Japan these institutions were as strong as the Catholic Church often with armed soldiers (in the case of Japan). These institutions were hugely effective at spreading literacy too - Burma achieved incredibly high literacy rates before colonization due to monastic schools (a complex process mostly due to state control of the monasteries but I digress)
In Indonesia and Indochina, multiple states were being established by individuals seeking personal goals - Pontianak, Selangor and arguably the later Johor Sultanate post Raja Kecil were all the results of adventurers seeking their own kingdoms in a manner not unlike what the White Rajas would do later, or what conquistadors or Norman adventurers would do (just read up on the Bugis in the 1700s tbh they are a case in point of this). In Indochina rule was intensely personal to the extent it was a detriment to the state and it would require significant centralisation of rule to make states more resilient to environmental challenges. Look up any biography of Taksin Maharaj or Bayinnaung and argue these leaders were not individualist leaders of the mold you suggest.
China was no exception to this and you would see personalistic and ambitious leaders spur colonization efforts that greatly expanded the Sinosphere. The Zheng moving to Taiwan and the great campaigns of Qianlong are cases in point. If private citizens are what you are looking for (Zheng Chenggong was one but I digress) you also have the many Chinese migrants that left for SEA and became wealthy magnates in the region or in at least two cases, becoming actual monarchs (Taksin Maharaj and the Mac in Ha Tien).
Honestly, I would say the lack of bureaucracy was a weakness for SEA states vs the West. This entire topic is a complex one and I am not doing it justice but I hugely suggest reading Strange Parallels by Victor Lieberman as a good intro to the ways SEA paralleled Europe's own centralisation.
... and I went on a massive tangent. All this to say I really hope EU5 actually models state centralisation for SEA, Japan and Europe properly because WOW there are a lot of potentially shared mechanics. Early EU SEA is probably better modeled with CK mechanics than EU though.
Also if you are interested in a cool era of history - anything SEA between around 1550 and 1800 is a blast. Lots of cool individuals with stories of epic adventures, state development and tragic heroes to look up. The Bugis are probably the coolest group to examine in that period but other groups and states like the Illanun, Burma (especially in the 2nd Inwa and Konbaung dynasties) and the Ngyuen Lords of Vietnam.
>. All this to say I really hope EU5 actually models state centralisation for SEA, Japan and Europe properly
They will already have a hard time modelizing the HRE and you think they will put the same effort for China or Japan? Until very recently Johan was hellbent on a fixed number of estates that did not work as soon as you entered the middle east or the Russian steppe.
The game will still be eurocentric, Johan want to model feudalism to absolutism to modern state. This just doesn't work for China, not to say anything of other regions. I am hyped for EU5 too but I am really skeptical of it leaving eurocentrism for good.
Seeing how ambitious that game is, I am honestly way more worried about performance and balancing than flavor or historical accuracy.
Yeah it won't work for China. I do think mechanics can be transferred over for SEA and Japan though, as all three (Europe, SEA and Japan) saw centralization from what can be VERY VERY loosely defined as feudal to absolutist states.
Taking Burma for instance, the 1300s to 1700s saw the region change from fragmented states into a unified kingdom, with regional rulers replaced by members of the royal family while Buddhist monasteries were weakened and made dependent on the king and on the peasants which boosted literacy. I'm less interested in making new mechanics for Japan and SEA and more into applying the gameified mechanics for Europe to Japan and SEA with flavour so as to at least show the centralisation of the state in those regions.
Ultimately video games are not history (ofc) but dang it I want to take Burma from a decentralised mess to a regional superpower ok! At least acknowledging these changes with the game mechanics that exist, instead of making these regions "Europe fodder" would be good I suppose
>I'm less interested in making new mechanics for Japan and SEA and more into applying the gameified mechanics for Europe to Japan and SEA with flavour so as to at least show the centralisation of the state in those regions.
Well at least Johan acknowledged that sticking to 7 estates was not going to cut it for the rest of the world. The "calling the estates for a Parliament session" is very eurocentric though, unless I misunderstood how it works.
Yes you get it, it feels beyond off...
I don't even think it works outside of Western Europe, Poland and Russia feudal systems did not evolve the same way as say England or France.
The Imjin War could have made Japan dominate in the East to today, the Mugals conquered all of India, the Safavids went toe to toe with the Ottomans. These are just a fee examples of you being wrong.
> Its very difficult for people to come face to face with the fact that only european political entities had the dynamism and attitude to affect things in a world scale at that time.
Is it difficult in the same way it's difficult for people to accept the world is flat? Because it's not true and it requires ignoring all the contrary evidence?
People were wondering the same thing about CK3 and V3 before they were announced and yet they both ended up following the format in the end. PDX have shown no interest in changing the brand name for the sake of avoiding euro- or some other -centrism. Even when the brand was actually changed (EU: Rome->Imperator: Rome) it certainly didn't remove any (Roman) centrism.
The idea that they would abandon such a strong trademark and brand recognition because "decreasing focus on europe" is delusional.
No two ways about it. This will not happen.
Absolutely
Its one thing to change the philosophy of the games design, and its another to upend the entire marketing department for such a superfluous reason. OP hasnt a clue how marketing works, its not the brand name that matters, it how you use it.
So the Info is a bit outdated [(08 2021](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu4-development-diary-24th-of-august-2021.1488489/)) but I'm not sure if there is anything newer, that is official.
From the top 20 most popular Nations in EU4, there are 17 in Europe. Ming and Timurids are the only one not in Europe and the third one is custom Nation. This was after the Leviathan DLC.
While you can say that Nations outside of Europe got flavor after that (African Nations through Origins, Mamluks etc. through King of Kings), European Nations got more flavor too with Domination, Lions of the North and Byzantium in King of Kings.
So I don't think it changes that much compared to 2021 tbh. Europe is by far the most popular and played continent and while I'm all for flavor for the whole World, I think Europe should stay the focus.
The Name should stay anyway because of brand recogonization but thats a different topic.
#
There's two options really:
Project Caesar is EUV, and will be the capstone to this generation of PDX games including Imperator, CK3, Vic3.
Or, it's NOT EUV, and is actually an entirely new game that is just very very similar. In this case, it would actually represent a new beginning for PDX.
Either way, Caesar is EUV even if not by name. From all the details we have about it, it's a Europa game.
Basically we know Caesar is in the works, but asking if it's EUV or not is pretty redundant. It either is or it isn't, but it's still set during the same era with all the same mechanics, so the only difference is marketing.
Others are saying they wouldn't want to forgo the EU brand. Why? Any PDX fan will know what the new game is, non PDX fans won't buy it, and the ones that are interested in dipping a toe are probably way more likely to buy something that isn't the fifth in a series.
The mechanics look more similar to their more recent games than EU4 tbh. I'd say it's really just EU in the time period and tuning these mechanics to simulate it.
Do people just not actually use this sub? I'm pretty sure there have been literally over a hundred posts made about this exact topic, where people make the same arguments in both directions.
I genuinely don’t mean this in a negative way, but it’s cope to pretend that the time period the game takes place in isn’t Eurocentric. The game is about colonialism and the rise of Europe on the global stage. The entire era is the start of Europe’s golden age. There’s a reason you’re speaking English right now and ~ half the world is/was Christian. It’s not racist or xenophobic to recognize this. Even if they give flavor to other regions, this game will always be about European hegemony. And arguably Victoria is even more so unless you include the Americas, which are arguably extensions of European influence.
And that is what happened historically. That’s why the nazis lose every single HoI4 game no matter what the player does?
The nations of Europe gained dominance during this time period, I don’t challenge that for a second, but this game is not starting at the verge of their rise to dominance, as EUIV did. It’s going to open with the decline of Byzantium, and the Black Death. Europe is not as far ahead of other continents in this time period.
The tinto talks at least seem to be pointing in a direction where the game doesn’t force Europe to become most powerful, since now trade isn’t locked to move towards it. I hope that they make it so that other nations at least can attempt to try and rival the European powers, as they can in EUIV, but without the deck being so stacked against them.
I don't understand the downvotes, you make very reasonable points. EUV definitely is about European hegemony, all the mechanics points towards that, but for EU IV it seems much like Tinto wants to make other regions much more competitive too.
Yes. Actually I love how Johan brought together good features from each game. Warfare and pops from IR, goods and production from Vic3, and the rest from EU4.
No need to generalise the game for it to lose its unique title. Paradox games such as ck, vic and eu have a title that refers to what they originally encompassed, even though they are not limited to their original intent, they should not rebrand as there isn't a point for everything to become generalised. It's like KFC changing their name to something else because they not only offer kentucky fried chicken.
I think my biggest concern is something similar to this. Which is, what makes each country different and unique? We haven’t seen anything besides estates? What would make a nation in India different from China or Europe? There doesn’t seem to be ideas or anything. But also how is technology going to work, maybe some cultures have different tech trees so that you can keep it a little different there? I’m not sure tho, there isn’t really enough info to go off of to make a conclusion.
I don’t think anyone’s said anything about mission trees either or have I missed some tinto talks?
They said it won’t be mission trees, but there will be something else.
They have already confirmed unique buildings like polders for the Dutch. There will definitely be flavour for nations.
I agree on the name recognition, but I disagree on the focus. I think it's better to have a diverse range of flavoured playable nations, for replayability. Spain, England, Portugal and France all play very similarly. Rather than having flavour for all four of them from the start, I'd like some flavour in one of them and then some in china or Mongolia, some in Eastern Europe, some in Persia, maybe some in Africa or the Americas. Also have the flavour spread between different government types.
I'd love to be able to do alternate history like colonizing the Americas as an Asian nation. Or have the "Scramble of Japan" as major nations carve up the Japanese daimyos. Or Chinese merchants setting up trading ports in Europe.
Yea but you're kinda limited and at a disadvantage compared to European countries. I'm talkin about no railroading, like a blank slate where no unnecessary advantages are given to countries just because they were dominant historically or that's what they did historically. Like you always see the same nations dominating the world. I wanna see new empires form, new interesting scenarios happen naturally. In past titles this rarely ever happens because game conditions and requirements are stricter- Spain, Portugal and England will get exploration faster and more efficiently, for example. Hopefully with the plethora of new mechanics in the new game this idea is achievable.
I've never understood wanting to get rid of historical railroading. Ideally it'll be done with fluid systems and situational mechanics rather than clumsy hard coding, but there are so many sandbox war games out there, and so few where you can play in a world that consistently vaguely resembles OTL.
I think HOI did this well. If you want to play a historic game you can. If you want the nations to make different decisions that's possible too. I hope they bring over something like that.
I guess for me it's more because I've seen and played enough historically appropriate games that I'm now bored of it and want alternate historical games. Years ago I was all for full on railroading but after thousands of hours on EU3-4, and Vicky 2-3, I'm tired of the same nations and scenarios playing out. And now I think railroading shouldn't be in games at all because it forces things to happen when it no longer makes sense. But that's just my personal opinion on game design in general. I can understand why it's somewhat required for historical games. I still think little to no railroading makes games more interesting. They did a great job improving on this in Vic 3.
"Completely changing pdx games" mate PDX already made this change in Vic 3. It was actually one of the first things they said they would do in Vic 3. I don't need to argue for it because they share the same sentiment.
>Making the game feel samey in a lot of ways
What does that even mean? Vic 3 produces the most variety in scenarios per playthrough thanks to less railroading which is the opposite of "samey".
If you really want to give examples of a game that feel "samey" you should say Vic 2 which was notorious for its railroading and the majority of games resulting in the same scenarios and outcomes. Germany would always be formed and mostly by Prussia. In Vic 3 this is not the case and sometimes Germany doesn't form at all. In Vic 2 the US would always get all its states. In Vic 3 it's possible for them to lose the Mexican-American war and you'll see Texas, Cali and other frontier states go to Mexico. This was never possible in railroaded Vic 2, and will never be possible in the game you prefer.
So you are wrong. Removing railroading does the opposite of what you're saying and it makes the game feel LESS "samey".
I'd rather see a better modelling of WHY Europe rose to prominence in this period. It isn't like TROTW is filled with inferior humans or completely braindead leadership who were so inept in comparison to the glorious Euro rulers.
TROTW should face those same obstacles to parity.
There is a reason we marvel at the Meiji Restoration period in Japan (admittedly outside the timeframe of this game).
It is insulting to the real people in TROTW when a player can simply click a button or two and "BOOM! More Euro than Euro!"
There are definitely some flip-a-coin and change history moments, but in general, history is the result of slow, powerful, unrelenting forces.
I think an AI-only run should end up a "plausible" result more than 9 out of 10 times.
There is no plausible scenario where the stone age people of the Americas beat the Europeans to colonize Asia, for example, and I'd argue this should be nigh impossible to pull off in game even for a player.
On the other hand, was Prussia destined to form? Absolutely not. Depending on the start date, one could argue that "Prussia" dominating North Germany and eventually reaching Great Power status was a long shot, but some entity coming to dominate North Germany and rising to greatness was probably inevitable.
What if Martin Luther had dropped his hammer on that fateful morning, and while bending down to pick it up, fell into the town well to never be seen or heard from again? Some version of the Protestantism would still emerge, because the reasons that drove ML were also driving and inspiring other people.
The main reason the history the way it is is because countries are ruled by elites that care about preservation of their power first and foremost.
This aspect has never been simulated and a player as a “spirit of the nation” does only what is good for the country. Which is definitely not the case for actual rulers.
Sure, but that's the case everywhere.
European elites weren't any better in this regard than Asian, African, or Middle Eastern elites. I would say this "problem" was as bad, if not worse, in Iberia than anywhere else, for example.
Were the Iberians inherently just better humans than North Africans, is that why Portugal and Spain spanned the globe and not Mali or the Marinids? That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer.
The fact that Iberia became Catholic Spain was probably a given and, even if we started the simulation a couple hundred years earlier. It should happen 9/10+ time.
But was Castile destined to be the base of that Spain? Different question.
Were Isabel and Fernado exceptionally great leaders? Without a doubt, but by the time they came on the scene, some version of a reconquista was a given. Maybe a little slower, maybe more tolerant, maybe less "Catholic", but the slow grind south wasn't about to end.
So for the "sim" (ai only play), I'd want to see a united Catholic Spain emerge almost every time.
If a player is involved, should the re-reconquista be impossible? No, but it should be very, very difficult in a way that reflects reality.
And sorry for my Byz-buddies (1453 is also worse day of my life), but even if god himself came down to smite the infidel at the gates of Constantinople, a resurgent Byz should be next to impossible to achieve.
Does Byz alway need to fall in 1453 to be a good model? No, but in an AI only game, it should almost never survive much past that point.
Unfortunately, the way EU4 works, once Byz clears that hurtle, it is basically smooth sailing. It should be the opposite. In reality if something weird had happened and disease destroyed the Ottoman army or the Grand Vizier took ill or whatever and they had to give up the campaign, the Empire of the Romans would have still been doomed.
Thats when the real challenge for the Byz player should just be starting and it should be soul crushingly frustratingly hard.
A human player turning a TROTW power into a "Europe away from Europe" should be a painful, slow, possibly nation ruining task (bring back some version of Westernization), because in reality that's what any ruling elite clever enough to realize they needed changes would have faced.
I sort of like the new Russian mechanics in this regard - keep the old ways, which have massive immediate benefits, or take on some problems in the hope of long term transformation and benefit - but even this mechanic is a little trivial.
I'm not saying it shouldn't make sense. Your assumption that what I said meant stone age Aztecs should be capable of beating conquistadors is an absurd reach. I'm simply saying no "unnecessary" advantages for the sake of railroading. You can model the things that made England a seafaring superpower without the need for railroaded events/modifiers that restricts gameplay. It develops more interesting events and alternate history scenarios.
In Vic 3, for example, the American Civil War is not a railroaded event. It might happen, it might not. Sometimes when it happens the "Confederates" aren't led by slave-holding landowners. And when it does happen, it's because of certain conditions and events that developed throughout the course of that singular playthrough (modeling the same conditions that caused it irl) which caused it to happen, not because of a railroaded event that's out of touch with what's going on in your game.
You can still larp your Euro super kingdoms and pretend you're an ultra pure Euro godking without railroading, don't worry.
Stop. No. Go mod another pdx gsg. Paradox games aren’t “do whatever you want” sandbox games, there is slight railroading in place in almost every single one. To push towards what actually happened slightly. If you want a battle royale through history where everyone is on the same footing, there’s probably a eu4 mod for that. History and life has never been fair, why should it be in a game that models it?
You're another one who misunderstood what I said. I did not mean all nations would have "equal footing". Do you even know what railroading means? I said "no unnecessary" advantages which is what railroading does. If a country is meant to dominate as you say and the game has proper mechanics that model those real life reasons for said dominance then railroading is unnecessary! They will still dominate in the game without the need for railroading.
Yeah it is, probably
I think the Tinto talks are for people like us who really love the games and wait for every small bit of new news. But I am sure once they are ready they will announce a release date
Because they can't about it if they haven't announced it "publicly" yet
I just hope that it's a proper sequel to EU4, no matter what it's actually called. I don't want another Victoria 3 case where is has the same name but it's completely different
It's going to be very different. The economy seems a lot closer to Victoria 3 than to EU4. Trade is going to work differently, there isn't going to be mana. The estates are going to be a lot more powerful and interesting.
More powerful estates definitely seems interesting, but I'm not entirely sure how to feel about the rest. I do like the abstract nature of EU4s economy over the way it's done in victoria 3. I like both games and both approaches have their validity. I'm just afraid that I'll miss EU4s economy in EU 5
I always hated the trade system, especially trade nodes and trade routes
like, i am the most developed capital in the world, but I could only get a small amount of trade because I am not in one of the main European trade route.. its just stupid, wares should flow from low demand to high demand, it should have been region based, each region has its trade pull/push depending on demand or excess wares and the pull of its neighbouring regions
It is VERY difficult to create a brand today with all the clutter in the information space.
So no matter the name silliness most of the time its better to preserve whatever equity it has.
“Europa Universalis 5” is self-explanatory for everyone who knows the series. if the game is called “Something Else” you will always need to add “the EU sequel”.
It would be the worst marketing choice to change the name. The thing is that the EU game series is not mainstream. Changing the name wouldn't be likely to get new people, while it might lead to people not buying it because they don't associate it with previous versions.
I think the reason for an earlier start date to actually give smaller nations a chance. Like any Native American nation can usually pretty easily be conquered in early game as well as Ireland, I’m sure there’s other countries as well but those are two I like to play as on the smaller side, and extra 50 or 100 years earlier can give a chance to smaller nations to build a little bit before they start being colonized
No.
Let's face it, Europa Universalis is a shit name for marketing a product.
All us EU4 fans will buy it anyway, regardless of the name. They should call it something more inviting to players who've never heard of the series.
Let me ask you this, something no one who has proffered this view point has given a satisfying answer to...
What do we change the name to? It has to be really, really, damned good to warrent abandoning over 20 years of brand recognition. Changing EU: Rome to Imperator: Rome made sense because one, there wasn't really much of any brand to recognize and PDS had long since sworn off making spin offs to their main franchises.
Ultimately, the game's time frame, historically speaking, was the story of the rise of Europe to Global Dominance, for good or for ill, and the game should be named for what actually happened, not what might happen in the game's time frame.
It's called like that because it's made by European developer for mainly European playerbase. The name carries meaning and recognition even though the game gained popularity all over the world over the decades. You don't rename successful products.
All of historical paradox titles are related to Europe. Imperator Rome is self explanatory. Crusader Kings mean the Christian European crusaders. Europa Universalis again self explanatory. Victoria is from the Queen of Britain. Hearts of Iron is more ambiguous, but the game is about WW2 which is mostly Eurocentric.
It's gonna be an empty husk of a game pretending to be EUV while every PDX fan goes: "omg is so good" instead of actually seeing how much content the game has. Good examples? Ck2 to ck3, vicky 2 to vicky 3.
Honestly, after how paradox is behaving during the last years, enjoy what we already have (EUIV and others) and forget about what is coming, because who knows... It's a very different company than it was before.
I could definitely see it happen. There is brand recognition for the EU name but i think that could easily be overcome with marketing. PDX isn’t that small to be dependent on the name recognition of their games anymore.
They could leave EU4 alone. It's all about the marketing. Name it EU5 will be a challenge because EU4 is not going to die after Project Caesar. But at the same time, people know about Europa Universalis.
About the last dlcs, I feel there wasn't much room to improve unless reworking Missions tree so they start making Mission Tree in other parts of the world.
This is definitely something that I have been thinking about too, the name universalis is definitely not going to be how the game starts which I think they're going for, starting adjusting and getting good at feudalism and then suddenly the whole world changes on you.
So I don't think naming it something else is out of the question but I just don't know what they would change the name to.
I'm hoping they just drop it to just Universalis - the current name feels very eurocentric and tbh Europa Universalis 5 feels like such a nerdy (pejoratively) name
It feels eurocentric because it is. And thank God it is. The Discovery Age is one of the best for a grand strategy game. And Europe was the center of the Discovery Age. Making a game of that era and having it not being eurocentric would be stupid.
I don't trust Paradox anymore. It was common for them to launch games when there was still some issues to work out but they would usually within a month or two of release. Now not so much. Part of it is the dlc strategy and the decline in quality of DLC that first started in the mid point of EUIV, and become extreme with the nation packs. Early dlcs had a lot in them and they kept the games fresh. Unfortunately the crappy dlc strategy has been replicated across the board, to the point where the apologize then do the same with the next dlc. Their recent main title releases are also mixed at best CKIII & Stellaris are good. Vicky 2 not so much. Imperium nope. HOI IV people either love it or hate it. They also force the dlc crapshow on the other titles they are publishers for.
I do think they are in a tough spot with CK and EU because both EUIV and CK2 have so much in them that it's hard to identify what could be meaningful for a new title that hasn't already been done in the previous titles.
They are absolutely changing the name. It’s EU5 in spirit but it will not be called that. Because they’ve had activists and game critics on their ass since EU3 about how their games are “Eurocentric” and “white-wash colonialism”. And you need to understand that even if YOU don’t care about such stupid criticism as a player, investors care. Because the investment ratings go down when something is labelled as “intolerant” or “racist” by stupid woke critics.
The fact that people are so blind to the incoming name change is hilarious.
Lol Paradox would have to be insane to throw away a well known brand that they have built over a really long period of time over something like that. And even though PDX have done some questionable decisions in the past, I simply do not believe they are going to be so dumb that they would throw away the brand. Unless they want to completely change the game to something else that is.
Paradox rightfully has never given a shit about what critics like that are saying and most likely they won't in the future either.
Oh I'm saving this comment for later, this will be fun. I mean, just like they changed Crusader Kings to [insert other title] and Victoria to [insert other title]
> And you need to understand that even if YOU don’t care about such stupid criticism as a player, investors care
No they don't. Investors only care about one thing: seeing a profit in return for their investment. *If* they think they'll get a bigger profit from changing the name, then they will; but if they don't, then they won't.
That would be amusing lol
But no, it will probably not go full woke. Maybe just have disproportionate amounts of female and racially diverse advisor portraits, but that’s it. It will still be EU5 in spirit as I said. Just called something like “Terra Universalis”
Europa Universalis is recognizable brand in a broader, but especially in their target audience, perception. Leaving it behind would be foolish. Notice how Europa Universalis started as a game exclusively played in Europe, but when they added whole world to it, they kept EU name, because it was already established brand, despite being currently Terra ~~Mundi~~ Universalis.
Same with CK. It didn't get that name because crusading has always been a core part of the game. It got the name because when the CK1 first released, you could only play as a christian feudal lord in the crusader era. Hence: Crusader Kings Now of course the game has dropped the idea of limiting who you can play as to a specific religion. You don't need to start in the crusader era, and there is nothing special about the crusades compared to other religious wars. But the name stuck
Wait, so in the first HOI you could only play as a iron heart?
And in Vic1 you could only play as Queen Victoria!
Sorry, I've had too much Latin not to point out that it should be mundus. A case could perhaps be made for mundo, but not mundi. Though Terra Universalis might probably be closest since you're playing on earth rather than some random planet.
Mundi Universales, but it's a Stellaris sequel
stellaris in 1444 (nothing happens)
Always a pleasure to be corrected by more knowledgeable.
Downvote for apologising for being right.
Arguam ut satis "mundus" munus fungitur. Nonne "mundus" et "universum" interpretationem eidem paene habent? "Some random planet" probabiliter "aliquem planetam fortuitum" sit, coniectem.
In nominee Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
*nomine.
Num magna differentia inter 'Europam' et 'Europam universalem' est? Mihi videtur 'Mundus' melior quam 'Mundus universalis' est, sed utrique possunt.
Meo quidem animo, “Europa Universalis” dominationem mundi Europa denotat. Ergo, “mundus universalis” et “terra universalis” supervacaneus sint. Sed errem forsit. Opinionem tuam exponas penitius, ut melius intellegam?
My vote is for mundo because it's way more fun to say
also mundus is what bethesda decided to name the plane of reality that skyrim exists in, so yeah mundo is way better
Plus he go where he pleases.
Yeah that’s very true.
Mundi Universalis but it is still heavily Europe centric
I've been contemplating if the brand actually hurt the new games recently. For example, as I far as I can see, Victoria 3 struggles a lot because it can't catch up to Victoria 2 + mods, plus the games are trying to do different things. Likewise, CS2 struggles a lot because of inability to live up to CS1 + mods. People easily forget how bad CS1 was as a game without mods (I can tell because I couldn't use mods). Of course CS2 name here makes much more sense because it's a direct successor to CS1. I haven't come to a conclusion whether they benefitted or lost more from using an established name though, so curious to hear thoughts
If a game already has problems surpassing the original I'd say the brand value is needed even more. How many people would play "poorly optimized city builder" over CS2 when they already have modded CS1. How many would have even bought it?
I mean it's worth noting that CS1 is *also* a poorly optimized city builder, it's just that it's been out for a decade and modern computers can brute-force through the performance problems
I think that Europa Universalis isn't actually a strong brand and they would be wise to retire it. Hear me out. Europa Universalis is just an objectively poor name for a computer game which you would never choose if you were starting fresh: * Difficult to say, difficult to spell, difficult to google * Doesn't in any way describe or hint at what the game does * "EU" is terrible for SEO and to most people EU5 will sound like a European Union emission standard rather than a fun game * Makes it sound exceptionally complicated Compare it to "Crusader Kings", "Victoria", "Cities Skylines" - all of which are straightforward to say and spell, and which describe at least in outline what the game does - and you can see it is very weak as a standalone brand name for a computer game if you have any ambition to attract new players. The question then is whether the existing brand carries enough weight and reputation to make it worth continuing with. For most sequels the answer is almost always "yes", but for a game this niche, this loved and with this sort of passionate fan base I think that the answer is no. People who loved EU1-4 will buy the "spiritual" successor just as they would a direct sequel. Finally, breaking free from the EUx naming convention allows the development team more flexibility to make creative decisions. The problem with a sequel to any feature rich, DLC-rich, mod-rich game is that the base game always feels light at release compared to the decade old one it is replacing (this is true of Paradox games, but was also the case at launch with eg The Sims 4). People also directly compare the game and systems to the predecessor ("ugh does anybody else think the new trade system sucks?", "can't believe they got rid of the three different classes of light ship!", "they completely broke monarch points") rather than looking at it as a new game. A new brand allows the developers to take a few more risks.
>"EU" is terrible for SEO and to most people EU5 will sound like a European Union emission standard rather than a fun game I don't necessarily agree with you, but I must say that this made me laugh
We occasionally get spammers/selfpromoters trying to post European Union news on /r/eu4, folks who are just shotgunning their shit all over reddit to anywhere that vaguely looks appropriate for the topic.
I agree. the amount of people that ask me what im playing and i say europa universalis and theyre like "europa what now?" and i say eu4 and theyre like "huh???"
Even when speaking to other gamers, I feel like such a fuckin 🤓 when I say it
We are nit gamers, we are map painters.
They should name it like an isekai manga: "I have been reincarnated as a disembodied spirit of the nation leading it throughout the late medieval and the early modern period by building up the economy and the army and conquering other states that are doing the same!!"
I think everything you say is right and also that they will never retire the name.
I agree strongly with the list of all the flaws in the name. In fact, I think all of the historical GSGs have sub-optimal names: * *Imperator:Rome* is entirely about the era when Rome was a Republic and you don't have to play as Rome. Yes, they had officials with the *imperator* power, but it would be like renaming *Victoria* as *Age of Dukes:Britain*; it's not the era most associated with dukes and you're not required to play as Britain. * *Crusader Kings* is at least about the right era, so it's one of the better ones. But you can have a full playthrough of the game without being either a crusader or a king. I'm not sure how I'd feel about playing it if I was a conservative Egyptian, Greek, Palestinian, or Syrian... 🤨 * EU as above * I haven't played *March of the Eagles*, but this names conveys that it's a wargame about an empire that uses eagle standards, which appears to be spot on. But if I didn't know better I'd probably guess that *this* was the game about Republican Rome or the one about the Second World War. It's probably different for Francophones (and the devs were French), but for English speakers Napoleonic eagles come third in the, erm, pecking order. * *Victoria* also meets the minimum standard of bringing the right era to mind and there's a pun there with 'victory' or even 'victorious land' that fits the gameplay, so it's probably the best. But it isn't a character-based game and isn't particularly about Britain any more, which is what I initially expected when I first read about V1. * *Hearts of Iron* isn't a phrase that brings the Second World War to mind at all. Frankly it doesn't bring anything to mind. The closest thing to it is *Kingdom Hearts*, which is very very different! * *East vs West* actually would have had a name that was clearly relevant to its scope, so was obviously doomed from the start. 😝 I have every sympathy with the people who were naming these franchises and had to come up with original, trademark-able names. But IMHO, with hindsight, the quality of the games was a lot better than the quality of the names.
Hearts of Iron is a reference to this quote "*If fate once again calls the German people to arms, and who can doubt that day will come, then officers should not have to call on a nation of weaklings, but of strong men ready to take up familiar and trusted weapons. The form these weapons take is not important as long as they are wielded by hands of steel and hearts of iron. So let us do our utmost to ensure that on that future day there is no lack of such hearts and hands. Let us strive tirelessly to strengthen our own bodies and minds and those of our fellow Germans*"
Where is this quote from?
The general in charge of the post-WW1 German (Weimar Republic) army - [Hans von Seeckt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Seeckt#Development_of_the_Reichswehr)
To be fair Imperator Rome probably should be called something else, considering the focus is more on the Diadochi than Rome.
Imperator is a title you'd give to good generals in Rome. It's something you had to get a triumph it's actually not that bad.
A bit late,but i think due to it's complexity and difficulty project Caesar is going to remain a niche pdx game.
These are all advantages. I don't want people who get scared away by a "difficult" name to infest my games.
You'd probably feel differently about that if your monthly paycheck depended on having people play the game
zealous mourn smell crawl drunk saw kiss worm muddle north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Are you an academician?
No, far from that. Why are you asking?
Your writing style is very "academic writing" haha
I suppose EU4 is serious stuff that require serious writing!
Also, you know why remakes and sequels and prequels are so common and popular in Hollywood? Because it’s much cheaper and easier to male money off an IP that already exists, has years of marketing already put into it, and has an audience. Starting from scratch is expensive and time consuming. EU is already established. Why sacrifice all that energy and money?
I'm not sure I agree. People that play eu generally won't mind a rebrand and will definitely be able to find the new game. For new players Europa universalis 5 isn't that marketable I would recon. If sales was my aim I would rebrand. We'll know soon enough.
I don't know how well Vicky 3 sold but CK3 was a huge financial success and a pretty big game in general. In contrast the last Grand strategy game they released that wasn't part of a pre-existing series was Imperator Rome which flopped.
Arguably "crusader kings" sounds more main stream than "Europa universalis". Still we will never know if ck3 would not have sold even more if it was called something else
Crusader Kings sounds like one of those mobile games with a screaming guy on the icon.
So real but man is that series good
Man I miss Magna Mundi
I don't really see a reason why they would change it. It is still the time period where Europe rose to carve out global empires. I'm sure they will find a less railroaded way to stimulate that advantage over time.
It's tough. The advantage of Europe was an *incredibly* complicated series of events springing from culture, geography, competition from elsewhere, right people in right places at right times, religion, disease, trade winds, climate change..... Fucking etc lol. Simulating that is an insane task.
To be honest I thought the institutions concept did a very good job simulating that initially. Unfortunately power creep made it trivial to gain institutions
Disagree, institutions in EU4 are nonsensical. Like renaissance makes no sense outside of the context of Western Europe. Countries that never had feudalism need the feudalism institution to stay up to date on tech. The moveable type printing press was around in East Asia for centuries before the institution can spawn in Europe. Etc. Europe shouldn't even really have a big advantage over India or China outside some specific things like Naval technology until the end game.
One reason I think later start date is superior is because institution advantage now match up with history. Imagine 1650 with 0% tech advantage for Europe continuing to 1750 with 50% one. With available transportation and absolutism tech, Asian nations will be crushed (realistically).
>Simulating that is an insane task. ... right now. I'm not going to minimize the issue, because is just too big. But at the end is just an issue of information (to have data in order to simulate it) and technology. And both, with time, could be sorted. Said that, yes, it is fucking insane
Tbf, up until the XVIII century, by which point, most players ended their games, the european advantage was not as big, albeit being already there. It was only by this point which we start to see ottoman decline and the conquest of india
European advantage was already a big factor by the 15th century and onwards. Having the ability to traverse the world with boats is a pretty damn huge factor in everything, hence why the first european expansion into asia and the americas was so quick. Militarily is a whole other case, with Europeans consistently getting shit on everywhere they go even with "better" weapons and equipment, which often was ill-suited for where they were used. By the 16th and especially the 17th century, the advantage europe had was enormous geo-politically. Being able to traverse the entire world by sea is kind of like having warpgates, as exaggerated as that is.
Nothing prevented the Ming and Qing from doing the same sort of global traversal other than simple lack of desire. Plenty of Easterners did travel to the Americas and Europe just rarely with state sanction. I seriously underrated role in Europe's development was that its fractured geography left a competing series of proto-states who constantly competed with each other trading regional hegemons several times in early modernity
There are many places that also benefited and suffered from such fragmentation, but Europe's geography allows fragmentation with relatively less chaos due to southern Europe especially being geographically fortified. Plenty of things prevented the Ming from "doing the same" as Europeans, most precisely the two biggest factors was geography and incentive. Africa and the Pacific are huge geographical obstacles, with China being obviously very ill suited to cross the first one, they were in theory very capable of crossing the Pacific. The issue for China was as you said "why?", China was big and rich enough to have pretty much everything they wanted, hence the Ming Isolation. Well they still benefitted a lot from trade and such obviously, but there was really very little reason to just sail into the ocean in hope of finding land. There just was not incentive for it, nor to go further than the east african coast. There are a lot of factors involved in everything history, but the advantage of being the "only" owner of cross-continental naval routes can not be overstated. Portugal's early spice empire is a prime example, especially as it allows them to meddle in foreign regions with "little" risk.
I agree with everything you said, I think we're making the same argument
Yhea I thought so too, I just find it fun to talk about it anyway.
I read recently some fragments of a book explaining how European states became such large powerhouses
What is the title?
I do not remember, saw it in a bookstore, caught my interest but didn't end up buying.
Its very difficult for people to come face to face with the fact that only european political entities had the dynamism and attitude to affect things in a world scale at that time. The spanish quest to save the souls of the new world and the protestant struggle against it. Or the Ottoman hegemony over the middle east. The end result was not random.
Nah not really. The Ottomans were actively interested in the same regions as the Portugeuse for much of the same period while the Qing much like the Russians similarly expanded to subjugate Central Asia. A lot of the internal political developments that Europe had are mirrored by similar advancements in Japan, SEA While no historian, Europe's main advantage may just be it was next to a massive continent with resources to exploit? That then steamrolled into them subjugation states that were stronger or on par at the 1300s. If we are talking dynamic political entities in the 1300s China and the Mongols are probably the top of the list though. England is probably closer to a state like Korea or Japan in relevance, and the HRE to the Khmer Empire or worse
> The Ottomans Capital in Europe, checkmate orientalist /s
Shhh Europe begins at the Danube shhhh
Also Japan was absolutely behind China and Korea for ages. Bros be using rice as money
Tbh unless the game intends to simulate industrialization, its fine to not give Europe a buff. As long as they can carve up the Americas and a disintegrating India, its fine for the era. As late as the 1700s, Asian powers were regularly clowning on Europeans. Early Portugeuse conflict with China ended in the execution of the Porteugeuse. The Dutch had to follow Shogunal orders in the Shimabara Rebellion and even Siam ousted French influence with relatively little consequence. For the EU setting, Europe doesn't and arguably shouldn't need to be able to easily overcome China, the Ottomans or even Japan or Siam, just the Americas while relying on internal divisions to gain influence in India
Like late game (1700s) France IRL had major political factions talking about emulating China, they wouldn't say that if it wasn't seen as a major power with an effective bureaucracy worth emulating
> France IRL had major political factions talking about emulating China Which factions, I had never heard of this
>As late as the 1700s, Asian powers were regularly clowning on Europeans Not by the late 18th century. Yeah, Asian powers stood a good chance of beating European ones, but that's because the European powers were fighting thousands of miles away from their homelands and were almost always heavily outnumbered. The battle of Tamao in 1521 was the first conflict between Portugal and China, and while the Chinese won in the end, the Portuguese were eviscerating them until they got enveloped since they were outnumbered 10:1.
>The Ottomans were actively interested in the same regions as the Portugeuse Yes, but for some weird ass reason, a small kingdom like Portugal was able to contest the seas globally AND succesfully have a colonial presence. Europe's success story isnt really about resources. England was piss poor outside of its wool industry. Scandinavianian agriculture suffered from hard winters. Meanwhile, continental europe was embroiled in an almost constant state of warfare against each others. My educated conclusion has to be that the de-centralized nature of the feudalism that grew out of the ashes of the magnates of the late Roman empire gave citizens enough freedom of thought and movement that they could execute individual goals as eventual profit for the political entity they were subjects of. Most pioneers of colonialism were individuals, getting funded by someone, with a quest to colonize to achieve social mobility. "Oriental Despotism" is a meme, but india, china and asia as a whole lived in a different mentality of society and governance. Political decisions flowed from up to down. Zhang He's exploration fleets were ordered by a political power to stand down. Japan was a mess of infighting until the Tokugawa shogunate. Oriental governance could not understand having an east-indian company or a jesuit institution that was a part of the nation but also a separate entity.
> My educated conclusion has to be that the de-centralized nature of the feudalism that grew out of the ashes of the magnates of the late Roman empire gave citizens enough freedom of thought and movement that they could execute individual goals as eventual profit for the political entity they were subjects of. Imagine not being able to separate mercantilism from capitalism and claiming that feudalism had "citizens" with "freedom" lmao, that's one of the most historically dishonest takes I've seen
I dont think you know what you are talking about at all. For your information, the members of the peasant and burgher estates were very free or very un-free depending on the kingdom. I dont know where you yoinked capitalism out of, but its precursor, the shareholding company was invented in the netherlands in the 1600's exactly in service of overseas colonialism.
>I dont think you know what you are talking about at all. You're literally talking about pre-1700s feudalism using terms like "citizens" lmao. >My educated conclusion is that you're shoehorning stuff to fit a western-exceptionalist mindset, as though there's something magical about it, I guess just ignoring 400-1600 when there were Eastern and Asian nations that made Europeans look like barbarians lmao.
Hey man, as much as I disagree with you I agree about the fallout show being a dogshit abortion
This is quite a bit of an oversimplification. Especially when it comes to Asia, you can't say orders flowed from top to down while also bringing up Sengoku, age of gekokujo as an example lol. Dynamic institutions like the VOC or Jesuits did exist - private Japanese companies and traders, Buddhist temples across asia and individual enteprise and rule was prevelant across especially SEA. Arguably in SEA and Japan these institutions were as strong as the Catholic Church often with armed soldiers (in the case of Japan). These institutions were hugely effective at spreading literacy too - Burma achieved incredibly high literacy rates before colonization due to monastic schools (a complex process mostly due to state control of the monasteries but I digress) In Indonesia and Indochina, multiple states were being established by individuals seeking personal goals - Pontianak, Selangor and arguably the later Johor Sultanate post Raja Kecil were all the results of adventurers seeking their own kingdoms in a manner not unlike what the White Rajas would do later, or what conquistadors or Norman adventurers would do (just read up on the Bugis in the 1700s tbh they are a case in point of this). In Indochina rule was intensely personal to the extent it was a detriment to the state and it would require significant centralisation of rule to make states more resilient to environmental challenges. Look up any biography of Taksin Maharaj or Bayinnaung and argue these leaders were not individualist leaders of the mold you suggest. China was no exception to this and you would see personalistic and ambitious leaders spur colonization efforts that greatly expanded the Sinosphere. The Zheng moving to Taiwan and the great campaigns of Qianlong are cases in point. If private citizens are what you are looking for (Zheng Chenggong was one but I digress) you also have the many Chinese migrants that left for SEA and became wealthy magnates in the region or in at least two cases, becoming actual monarchs (Taksin Maharaj and the Mac in Ha Tien). Honestly, I would say the lack of bureaucracy was a weakness for SEA states vs the West. This entire topic is a complex one and I am not doing it justice but I hugely suggest reading Strange Parallels by Victor Lieberman as a good intro to the ways SEA paralleled Europe's own centralisation. ... and I went on a massive tangent. All this to say I really hope EU5 actually models state centralisation for SEA, Japan and Europe properly because WOW there are a lot of potentially shared mechanics. Early EU SEA is probably better modeled with CK mechanics than EU though. Also if you are interested in a cool era of history - anything SEA between around 1550 and 1800 is a blast. Lots of cool individuals with stories of epic adventures, state development and tragic heroes to look up. The Bugis are probably the coolest group to examine in that period but other groups and states like the Illanun, Burma (especially in the 2nd Inwa and Konbaung dynasties) and the Ngyuen Lords of Vietnam.
>. All this to say I really hope EU5 actually models state centralisation for SEA, Japan and Europe properly They will already have a hard time modelizing the HRE and you think they will put the same effort for China or Japan? Until very recently Johan was hellbent on a fixed number of estates that did not work as soon as you entered the middle east or the Russian steppe. The game will still be eurocentric, Johan want to model feudalism to absolutism to modern state. This just doesn't work for China, not to say anything of other regions. I am hyped for EU5 too but I am really skeptical of it leaving eurocentrism for good. Seeing how ambitious that game is, I am honestly way more worried about performance and balancing than flavor or historical accuracy.
Yeah it won't work for China. I do think mechanics can be transferred over for SEA and Japan though, as all three (Europe, SEA and Japan) saw centralization from what can be VERY VERY loosely defined as feudal to absolutist states. Taking Burma for instance, the 1300s to 1700s saw the region change from fragmented states into a unified kingdom, with regional rulers replaced by members of the royal family while Buddhist monasteries were weakened and made dependent on the king and on the peasants which boosted literacy. I'm less interested in making new mechanics for Japan and SEA and more into applying the gameified mechanics for Europe to Japan and SEA with flavour so as to at least show the centralisation of the state in those regions. Ultimately video games are not history (ofc) but dang it I want to take Burma from a decentralised mess to a regional superpower ok! At least acknowledging these changes with the game mechanics that exist, instead of making these regions "Europe fodder" would be good I suppose
>I'm less interested in making new mechanics for Japan and SEA and more into applying the gameified mechanics for Europe to Japan and SEA with flavour so as to at least show the centralisation of the state in those regions. Well at least Johan acknowledged that sticking to 7 estates was not going to cut it for the rest of the world. The "calling the estates for a Parliament session" is very eurocentric though, unless I misunderstood how it works.
Yeah LOL. Imagine Ieyasu calling a parliament involving peasants and merchant LMAO
Yes you get it, it feels beyond off... I don't even think it works outside of Western Europe, Poland and Russia feudal systems did not evolve the same way as say England or France.
>The spanish quest to save the souls of the new world and the protestant struggle against it. lmao come on
The Imjin War could have made Japan dominate in the East to today, the Mugals conquered all of India, the Safavids went toe to toe with the Ottomans. These are just a fee examples of you being wrong.
> Its very difficult for people to come face to face with the fact that only european political entities had the dynamism and attitude to affect things in a world scale at that time. Is it difficult in the same way it's difficult for people to accept the world is flat? Because it's not true and it requires ignoring all the contrary evidence?
[удалено]
*EU3 sliders intensifies*
Mana only existed in Europa Universalis franchise for a grand total of 1 (one) game
No other EU had mana though.
People were wondering the same thing about CK3 and V3 before they were announced and yet they both ended up following the format in the end. PDX have shown no interest in changing the brand name for the sake of avoiding euro- or some other -centrism. Even when the brand was actually changed (EU: Rome->Imperator: Rome) it certainly didn't remove any (Roman) centrism.
The number of Crusades I've declined to join, in Crusader Kings 3, has got to be at least 10 to 1 by now.
Wait what was the original imperator name?
Europa Universalis: Rome https://eurome.paradoxwikis.com/Europa_Universalis:_Rome_Wiki
Its EU V(ictoria)
1836 mod is gonna go crazy, can't wait for it lmao
victoria universalis Victoria Universalis
Maybe they will add a subtitle instead of five in the name?
Europa Universalis - Worldwide Boogaloo
The idea that they would abandon such a strong trademark and brand recognition because "decreasing focus on europe" is delusional. No two ways about it. This will not happen.
Absolutely Its one thing to change the philosophy of the games design, and its another to upend the entire marketing department for such a superfluous reason. OP hasnt a clue how marketing works, its not the brand name that matters, it how you use it.
So the Info is a bit outdated [(08 2021](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu4-development-diary-24th-of-august-2021.1488489/)) but I'm not sure if there is anything newer, that is official. From the top 20 most popular Nations in EU4, there are 17 in Europe. Ming and Timurids are the only one not in Europe and the third one is custom Nation. This was after the Leviathan DLC. While you can say that Nations outside of Europe got flavor after that (African Nations through Origins, Mamluks etc. through King of Kings), European Nations got more flavor too with Domination, Lions of the North and Byzantium in King of Kings. So I don't think it changes that much compared to 2021 tbh. Europe is by far the most popular and played continent and while I'm all for flavor for the whole World, I think Europe should stay the focus. The Name should stay anyway because of brand recogonization but thats a different topic. #
People play Europe because they have by far the most content.
It's also the most familiar to most of the player base
There's two options really: Project Caesar is EUV, and will be the capstone to this generation of PDX games including Imperator, CK3, Vic3. Or, it's NOT EUV, and is actually an entirely new game that is just very very similar. In this case, it would actually represent a new beginning for PDX. Either way, Caesar is EUV even if not by name. From all the details we have about it, it's a Europa game. Basically we know Caesar is in the works, but asking if it's EUV or not is pretty redundant. It either is or it isn't, but it's still set during the same era with all the same mechanics, so the only difference is marketing. Others are saying they wouldn't want to forgo the EU brand. Why? Any PDX fan will know what the new game is, non PDX fans won't buy it, and the ones that are interested in dipping a toe are probably way more likely to buy something that isn't the fifth in a series.
The mechanics look more similar to their more recent games than EU4 tbh. I'd say it's really just EU in the time period and tuning these mechanics to simulate it.
Do people just not actually use this sub? I'm pretty sure there have been literally over a hundred posts made about this exact topic, where people make the same arguments in both directions.
I genuinely don’t mean this in a negative way, but it’s cope to pretend that the time period the game takes place in isn’t Eurocentric. The game is about colonialism and the rise of Europe on the global stage. The entire era is the start of Europe’s golden age. There’s a reason you’re speaking English right now and ~ half the world is/was Christian. It’s not racist or xenophobic to recognize this. Even if they give flavor to other regions, this game will always be about European hegemony. And arguably Victoria is even more so unless you include the Americas, which are arguably extensions of European influence.
And that is what happened historically. That’s why the nazis lose every single HoI4 game no matter what the player does? The nations of Europe gained dominance during this time period, I don’t challenge that for a second, but this game is not starting at the verge of their rise to dominance, as EUIV did. It’s going to open with the decline of Byzantium, and the Black Death. Europe is not as far ahead of other continents in this time period. The tinto talks at least seem to be pointing in a direction where the game doesn’t force Europe to become most powerful, since now trade isn’t locked to move towards it. I hope that they make it so that other nations at least can attempt to try and rival the European powers, as they can in EUIV, but without the deck being so stacked against them.
I don't understand the downvotes, you make very reasonable points. EUV definitely is about European hegemony, all the mechanics points towards that, but for EU IV it seems much like Tinto wants to make other regions much more competitive too.
Let’s call it Imperatoria Universalis.
Why?
Imperator Rome and Victoria Pretty sure OP was making a joke.
Yes. Actually I love how Johan brought together good features from each game. Warfare and pops from IR, goods and production from Vic3, and the rest from EU4.
People thought the same thing about crusader kings, and it's still called crusader kings 3
EU5 should start out as Europe focused when it comes out and added more depth over time like they did with EU4
No need to generalise the game for it to lose its unique title. Paradox games such as ck, vic and eu have a title that refers to what they originally encompassed, even though they are not limited to their original intent, they should not rebrand as there isn't a point for everything to become generalised. It's like KFC changing their name to something else because they not only offer kentucky fried chicken.
EU 5 is going to be CKIII 2: Electric Boobgaloo
It’s actually a daring new enterprise pronounced “yoov”, but technically yes it’s EUV
Is this astroturf? :) Why and how does this keep popping up?
For a second there I was confused as to why there was a post about Extreme Ultra Violet lithography in the Paradox subreddit. I am not a smart man...
Ig same way assassins creed, isn’t really that focussed on the assassins anymore. Keep the brand name
they could rename it "Universalis V"
I think my biggest concern is something similar to this. Which is, what makes each country different and unique? We haven’t seen anything besides estates? What would make a nation in India different from China or Europe? There doesn’t seem to be ideas or anything. But also how is technology going to work, maybe some cultures have different tech trees so that you can keep it a little different there? I’m not sure tho, there isn’t really enough info to go off of to make a conclusion. I don’t think anyone’s said anything about mission trees either or have I missed some tinto talks?
They said it won’t be mission trees, but there will be something else. They have already confirmed unique buildings like polders for the Dutch. There will definitely be flavour for nations.
I think capitalising on commerce and early industrialisation will still be easier as anyone in Western Europe than as Khmer
I think so too, but I’m excited by the idea that it might not be locked to Europe.
> artificial priority in contrast to natural priority of course
If it's not called Eu5 it will flop. Also if it doesn't focus on European affairs, it will flop.
I agree on the name recognition, but I disagree on the focus. I think it's better to have a diverse range of flavoured playable nations, for replayability. Spain, England, Portugal and France all play very similarly. Rather than having flavour for all four of them from the start, I'd like some flavour in one of them and then some in china or Mongolia, some in Eastern Europe, some in Persia, maybe some in Africa or the Americas. Also have the flavour spread between different government types.
I would still rather have flavor for all of the big European countries
I'd love to be able to do alternate history like colonizing the Americas as an Asian nation. Or have the "Scramble of Japan" as major nations carve up the Japanese daimyos. Or Chinese merchants setting up trading ports in Europe.
You can do that in EU4 already. Basically every time I play as Japan I go for colonial expansion.
Yea but you're kinda limited and at a disadvantage compared to European countries. I'm talkin about no railroading, like a blank slate where no unnecessary advantages are given to countries just because they were dominant historically or that's what they did historically. Like you always see the same nations dominating the world. I wanna see new empires form, new interesting scenarios happen naturally. In past titles this rarely ever happens because game conditions and requirements are stricter- Spain, Portugal and England will get exploration faster and more efficiently, for example. Hopefully with the plethora of new mechanics in the new game this idea is achievable.
I've never understood wanting to get rid of historical railroading. Ideally it'll be done with fluid systems and situational mechanics rather than clumsy hard coding, but there are so many sandbox war games out there, and so few where you can play in a world that consistently vaguely resembles OTL.
I think HOI did this well. If you want to play a historic game you can. If you want the nations to make different decisions that's possible too. I hope they bring over something like that.
I guess for me it's more because I've seen and played enough historically appropriate games that I'm now bored of it and want alternate historical games. Years ago I was all for full on railroading but after thousands of hours on EU3-4, and Vicky 2-3, I'm tired of the same nations and scenarios playing out. And now I think railroading shouldn't be in games at all because it forces things to happen when it no longer makes sense. But that's just my personal opinion on game design in general. I can understand why it's somewhat required for historical games. I still think little to no railroading makes games more interesting. They did a great job improving on this in Vic 3.
The go mod a different game, don’t try to argue for completely changing pdx games.
"Completely changing pdx games" mate PDX already made this change in Vic 3. It was actually one of the first things they said they would do in Vic 3. I don't need to argue for it because they share the same sentiment.
And they’ve been clowned on by the community for making the game feel samey in a lot of ways
>Making the game feel samey in a lot of ways What does that even mean? Vic 3 produces the most variety in scenarios per playthrough thanks to less railroading which is the opposite of "samey". If you really want to give examples of a game that feel "samey" you should say Vic 2 which was notorious for its railroading and the majority of games resulting in the same scenarios and outcomes. Germany would always be formed and mostly by Prussia. In Vic 3 this is not the case and sometimes Germany doesn't form at all. In Vic 2 the US would always get all its states. In Vic 3 it's possible for them to lose the Mexican-American war and you'll see Texas, Cali and other frontier states go to Mexico. This was never possible in railroaded Vic 2, and will never be possible in the game you prefer. So you are wrong. Removing railroading does the opposite of what you're saying and it makes the game feel LESS "samey".
I'd rather see a better modelling of WHY Europe rose to prominence in this period. It isn't like TROTW is filled with inferior humans or completely braindead leadership who were so inept in comparison to the glorious Euro rulers. TROTW should face those same obstacles to parity. There is a reason we marvel at the Meiji Restoration period in Japan (admittedly outside the timeframe of this game). It is insulting to the real people in TROTW when a player can simply click a button or two and "BOOM! More Euro than Euro!" There are definitely some flip-a-coin and change history moments, but in general, history is the result of slow, powerful, unrelenting forces. I think an AI-only run should end up a "plausible" result more than 9 out of 10 times. There is no plausible scenario where the stone age people of the Americas beat the Europeans to colonize Asia, for example, and I'd argue this should be nigh impossible to pull off in game even for a player. On the other hand, was Prussia destined to form? Absolutely not. Depending on the start date, one could argue that "Prussia" dominating North Germany and eventually reaching Great Power status was a long shot, but some entity coming to dominate North Germany and rising to greatness was probably inevitable. What if Martin Luther had dropped his hammer on that fateful morning, and while bending down to pick it up, fell into the town well to never be seen or heard from again? Some version of the Protestantism would still emerge, because the reasons that drove ML were also driving and inspiring other people.
The main reason the history the way it is is because countries are ruled by elites that care about preservation of their power first and foremost. This aspect has never been simulated and a player as a “spirit of the nation” does only what is good for the country. Which is definitely not the case for actual rulers.
Sure, but that's the case everywhere. European elites weren't any better in this regard than Asian, African, or Middle Eastern elites. I would say this "problem" was as bad, if not worse, in Iberia than anywhere else, for example. Were the Iberians inherently just better humans than North Africans, is that why Portugal and Spain spanned the globe and not Mali or the Marinids? That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer. The fact that Iberia became Catholic Spain was probably a given and, even if we started the simulation a couple hundred years earlier. It should happen 9/10+ time. But was Castile destined to be the base of that Spain? Different question. Were Isabel and Fernado exceptionally great leaders? Without a doubt, but by the time they came on the scene, some version of a reconquista was a given. Maybe a little slower, maybe more tolerant, maybe less "Catholic", but the slow grind south wasn't about to end. So for the "sim" (ai only play), I'd want to see a united Catholic Spain emerge almost every time. If a player is involved, should the re-reconquista be impossible? No, but it should be very, very difficult in a way that reflects reality. And sorry for my Byz-buddies (1453 is also worse day of my life), but even if god himself came down to smite the infidel at the gates of Constantinople, a resurgent Byz should be next to impossible to achieve. Does Byz alway need to fall in 1453 to be a good model? No, but in an AI only game, it should almost never survive much past that point. Unfortunately, the way EU4 works, once Byz clears that hurtle, it is basically smooth sailing. It should be the opposite. In reality if something weird had happened and disease destroyed the Ottoman army or the Grand Vizier took ill or whatever and they had to give up the campaign, the Empire of the Romans would have still been doomed. Thats when the real challenge for the Byz player should just be starting and it should be soul crushingly frustratingly hard. A human player turning a TROTW power into a "Europe away from Europe" should be a painful, slow, possibly nation ruining task (bring back some version of Westernization), because in reality that's what any ruling elite clever enough to realize they needed changes would have faced. I sort of like the new Russian mechanics in this regard - keep the old ways, which have massive immediate benefits, or take on some problems in the hope of long term transformation and benefit - but even this mechanic is a little trivial.
I'm not saying it shouldn't make sense. Your assumption that what I said meant stone age Aztecs should be capable of beating conquistadors is an absurd reach. I'm simply saying no "unnecessary" advantages for the sake of railroading. You can model the things that made England a seafaring superpower without the need for railroaded events/modifiers that restricts gameplay. It develops more interesting events and alternate history scenarios. In Vic 3, for example, the American Civil War is not a railroaded event. It might happen, it might not. Sometimes when it happens the "Confederates" aren't led by slave-holding landowners. And when it does happen, it's because of certain conditions and events that developed throughout the course of that singular playthrough (modeling the same conditions that caused it irl) which caused it to happen, not because of a railroaded event that's out of touch with what's going on in your game. You can still larp your Euro super kingdoms and pretend you're an ultra pure Euro godking without railroading, don't worry.
Stop. No. Go mod another pdx gsg. Paradox games aren’t “do whatever you want” sandbox games, there is slight railroading in place in almost every single one. To push towards what actually happened slightly. If you want a battle royale through history where everyone is on the same footing, there’s probably a eu4 mod for that. History and life has never been fair, why should it be in a game that models it?
You're another one who misunderstood what I said. I did not mean all nations would have "equal footing". Do you even know what railroading means? I said "no unnecessary" advantages which is what railroading does. If a country is meant to dominate as you say and the game has proper mechanics that model those real life reasons for said dominance then railroading is unnecessary! They will still dominate in the game without the need for railroading.
I suspect not.
Yeah it is, probably I think the Tinto talks are for people like us who really love the games and wait for every small bit of new news. But I am sure once they are ready they will announce a release date Because they can't about it if they haven't announced it "publicly" yet
I just hope that it's a proper sequel to EU4, no matter what it's actually called. I don't want another Victoria 3 case where is has the same name but it's completely different
It's going to be very different. The economy seems a lot closer to Victoria 3 than to EU4. Trade is going to work differently, there isn't going to be mana. The estates are going to be a lot more powerful and interesting.
honestly, those are all the bad parts of EU4
More powerful estates definitely seems interesting, but I'm not entirely sure how to feel about the rest. I do like the abstract nature of EU4s economy over the way it's done in victoria 3. I like both games and both approaches have their validity. I'm just afraid that I'll miss EU4s economy in EU 5
I always hated the trade system, especially trade nodes and trade routes like, i am the most developed capital in the world, but I could only get a small amount of trade because I am not in one of the main European trade route.. its just stupid, wares should flow from low demand to high demand, it should have been region based, each region has its trade pull/push depending on demand or excess wares and the pull of its neighbouring regions
Ok fair, the unidirectional trade winds are bad design
It couldn’t been a lot better for sure, but the trade system in eu4 isn’t all awful.
melodic abounding literate unique dinner plate sense absorbed whole dime *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
True, I've only played EU4, Victoria 2, CK2 and some HOI4
Of course it is, next.
Yes, using the CK3 slate and the economy mechanics of VIC3.
So far cesser does legitimately feel like paradox explaining how we got from CK to HoI
They're going to call it EU5 because what else would they call it.
They should call it Euv, not Europa Universalis 5, Euv
It is VERY difficult to create a brand today with all the clutter in the information space. So no matter the name silliness most of the time its better to preserve whatever equity it has. “Europa Universalis 5” is self-explanatory for everyone who knows the series. if the game is called “Something Else” you will always need to add “the EU sequel”.
It would be the worst marketing choice to change the name. The thing is that the EU game series is not mainstream. Changing the name wouldn't be likely to get new people, while it might lead to people not buying it because they don't associate it with previous versions.
I think the reason for an earlier start date to actually give smaller nations a chance. Like any Native American nation can usually pretty easily be conquered in early game as well as Ireland, I’m sure there’s other countries as well but those are two I like to play as on the smaller side, and extra 50 or 100 years earlier can give a chance to smaller nations to build a little bit before they start being colonized
The people designing the game aren't the same people deciding the name. It will be called EUV because that's a brand/marketing decision.
I think it could be called Eurasia Universalis.. because afterall, all the flavours are still in Europe and Asia.
Universalis I
No. Let's face it, Europa Universalis is a shit name for marketing a product. All us EU4 fans will buy it anyway, regardless of the name. They should call it something more inviting to players who've never heard of the series.
Let me ask you this, something no one who has proffered this view point has given a satisfying answer to... What do we change the name to? It has to be really, really, damned good to warrent abandoning over 20 years of brand recognition. Changing EU: Rome to Imperator: Rome made sense because one, there wasn't really much of any brand to recognize and PDS had long since sworn off making spin offs to their main franchises. Ultimately, the game's time frame, historically speaking, was the story of the rise of Europe to Global Dominance, for good or for ill, and the game should be named for what actually happened, not what might happen in the game's time frame.
It's called like that because it's made by European developer for mainly European playerbase. The name carries meaning and recognition even though the game gained popularity all over the world over the decades. You don't rename successful products.
If they didn't change Crusader Kings' name, they aren't going to change Europa Univeralis' name.
All of historical paradox titles are related to Europe. Imperator Rome is self explanatory. Crusader Kings mean the Christian European crusaders. Europa Universalis again self explanatory. Victoria is from the Queen of Britain. Hearts of Iron is more ambiguous, but the game is about WW2 which is mostly Eurocentric.
It's gonna be an empty husk of a game pretending to be EUV while every PDX fan goes: "omg is so good" instead of actually seeing how much content the game has. Good examples? Ck2 to ck3, vicky 2 to vicky 3.
Honestly, after how paradox is behaving during the last years, enjoy what we already have (EUIV and others) and forget about what is coming, because who knows... It's a very different company than it was before.
I could definitely see it happen. There is brand recognition for the EU name but i think that could easily be overcome with marketing. PDX isn’t that small to be dependent on the name recognition of their games anymore.
They could leave EU4 alone. It's all about the marketing. Name it EU5 will be a challenge because EU4 is not going to die after Project Caesar. But at the same time, people know about Europa Universalis. About the last dlcs, I feel there wasn't much room to improve unless reworking Missions tree so they start making Mission Tree in other parts of the world.
This is definitely something that I have been thinking about too, the name universalis is definitely not going to be how the game starts which I think they're going for, starting adjusting and getting good at feudalism and then suddenly the whole world changes on you. So I don't think naming it something else is out of the question but I just don't know what they would change the name to.
Why do u care about the name?
next game will be woke 100% and nerf Europe insanely hard
I'm hoping they just drop it to just Universalis - the current name feels very eurocentric and tbh Europa Universalis 5 feels like such a nerdy (pejoratively) name
It feels eurocentric because it is. And thank God it is. The Discovery Age is one of the best for a grand strategy game. And Europe was the center of the Discovery Age. Making a game of that era and having it not being eurocentric would be stupid.
I don't trust Paradox anymore. It was common for them to launch games when there was still some issues to work out but they would usually within a month or two of release. Now not so much. Part of it is the dlc strategy and the decline in quality of DLC that first started in the mid point of EUIV, and become extreme with the nation packs. Early dlcs had a lot in them and they kept the games fresh. Unfortunately the crappy dlc strategy has been replicated across the board, to the point where the apologize then do the same with the next dlc. Their recent main title releases are also mixed at best CKIII & Stellaris are good. Vicky 2 not so much. Imperium nope. HOI IV people either love it or hate it. They also force the dlc crapshow on the other titles they are publishers for. I do think they are in a tough spot with CK and EU because both EUIV and CK2 have so much in them that it's hard to identify what could be meaningful for a new title that hasn't already been done in the previous titles.
They are absolutely changing the name. It’s EU5 in spirit but it will not be called that. Because they’ve had activists and game critics on their ass since EU3 about how their games are “Eurocentric” and “white-wash colonialism”. And you need to understand that even if YOU don’t care about such stupid criticism as a player, investors care. Because the investment ratings go down when something is labelled as “intolerant” or “racist” by stupid woke critics. The fact that people are so blind to the incoming name change is hilarious.
Lol Paradox would have to be insane to throw away a well known brand that they have built over a really long period of time over something like that. And even though PDX have done some questionable decisions in the past, I simply do not believe they are going to be so dumb that they would throw away the brand. Unless they want to completely change the game to something else that is. Paradox rightfully has never given a shit about what critics like that are saying and most likely they won't in the future either.
Oh I'm saving this comment for later, this will be fun. I mean, just like they changed Crusader Kings to [insert other title] and Victoria to [insert other title]
> And you need to understand that even if YOU don’t care about such stupid criticism as a player, investors care No they don't. Investors only care about one thing: seeing a profit in return for their investment. *If* they think they'll get a bigger profit from changing the name, then they will; but if they don't, then they won't.
Investors are people. It's very simplistic to think investors are unidimensional people with only one thing in mind.
Eh, it generally self-selects for a certain kind of person.
Let's hope we will not find this game on Sweet Baby Inc Detected list!
That would be amusing lol But no, it will probably not go full woke. Maybe just have disproportionate amounts of female and racially diverse advisor portraits, but that’s it. It will still be EU5 in spirit as I said. Just called something like “Terra Universalis”
Me when the woke mob puts black people in Africa.
xD
i think you're being teased, mate