PDX LISTENED TO YOU & EUROPE Got Reworked ALREADY
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- EUROPA UNIVERSALIS 5 Western Europe POLITICAL Map REVISION
✅ EU5 Videos: ✅
✅ Balkan Breakdown - • I WAS RIGHT !! EU5 Sta... ✅
✅ German Breakdown - • EU5 Political MAP is H... ✅
✅ EU5 prediction video - • EU5 Is Here & Starts i... ✅
❤️ PATREON ► / ludiethistoria
💻 TWITCH► / ludiethistoria
👑 DISCORD ► / discord
Vods Channel☑️ @LudiClips ☑️
Personal Channel ☑️ @Ludisan ☑️
Europa Universalis IV is a grand strategy games published by Paradox Interactive. All rights reserved. This is an unofficial video, not endorsed by Paradox Interactive.
The following DLC is used in this series:
Eu4 Winds of Change King of Kings Domination Lions of the North Origins leviathan Emperor DLC, Dharma, Rule Britannia, Cradle of Civilization, Third Rome, Mandate of Heaven, Rights of Man, Mare Nostrum, The Cossacks, Common Sense, El Dorado, Art of War, Res Publica, Wealth of Nations, and Conquest of Paradise. EU5 West Europe POLITICAL MAP is HERE & REVISED
#eu5 #europauniversalis
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
The whole Political Map of Europe analyzed here - th-cam.com/video/uUHOrpyFZcQ/w-d-xo.html
For some reason i can not make nor.al comment. Only reply. But what feature i most would like to go is complicated trade. It should be little easier.
what I want answered is simple; are they going to charge us for DLC's for EU5 for stuff they already included in the old games that we already payed for in Eu4, simply are they going to cut content from EU4, only to introduce it into EU5 again, through payed DLCs?
ok ludi but where do i pay u the 6yen or is ad revenue enougth
Hope they add the Griko people in Calabria could be fun to play with them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_people
Still no San Marino, day ruined
ngl that was disappointing, San Marino SHOULD BE ON THE MAP.
@@LudietHistoria San Marino world conquest, when?!
They also should add Forlì, as it was an important settlement in Central Italy.
Agree!
Vatican city or the city of Rome is probably more significant as a microstate/nation. San Marino just does nothing for the game
when negotiating a peace treaty, it seems pointless to only lose or gain something. for example, to quickly end a war, we could offer 200 ducats while requesting a province from them. so there could be a trade-off logic in agreements as a new feature
This is a really good point, there have been wars for countries forcing others to let them buy territory lmao, there should be some sort of barter diplomacy like Total War.
Well and also, some territories were just straight up bought, without any war needed. Denmark sold whole of Estonia to the Teutons in 1346, for example.
Trade off peace deals are probably the most obvious missing feature in EU4 for me
Good idea
This would be great for border corrections too.
This would surely make peace deals more interesting and could reduce bordergore overall.
I hate in EU4 when IA armies know where my armies are even deep in my territory with "fog of war", this happens when my armies retreat deep inside my land and magically the IA follows me even when I retreated half of the map
it's intentionally made to make AI less dumb, it can see your armies even in fog of war, otherwise AI will become even dumber
Quite common in strategy games that enemies have no fog of war and only pretend there is one.
@@goldenhate6649 on the other hand the player also has massively powerful tools. Look how much information can be gleaned from the ledger and compare with HOI4 for example that only gives a rough estimate (depending on your spying abilities) of what other nations have.
I hope we get a proper espionage system instead of knowing "this country has exactly an army that big with that many reserves"
Tbh a retreating army is quite easy to follow. By-passing forts tho, that is quite frustrating.
@@Soohka Bypassing forts? What are you talking about? They're just *working as intended* 🤣
I hope they wont let rebels that wants independence get a whole ass continent just because they sieged one province
I haven't personally experienced this, but allegedly someone had the entire Scandinavia pop out of them because of a rebel stack in Iceland (or maybe even Greenland) was ignored.
@@Xazamaswhat if a great power could recognize rebel controlled provinces with some requirements and it becomes a new state say like time with provinces and backing of a great power
@@Xazamas I had this happen with Norway but it was one of those miniscule 3 dev islands in the North Sea. Modern day Shetland. Didn't realise they even fired, and they took all of Norway from me. And getting it back meant I lost a level in the centres if trade. Painful as hell.
@@Xazamas It's a common strategy when fighting the Ottomans to have a pocket in Bulgaria surrounded by you so that Ottomans get forced to release all of Bulgaria.
Same strategy works with any other tag and can absolutely RUIN the country you do it to (I got Russia to release all of Novgorod that way playing Commonwealth).
@@edim108what do you mean by pocket?
After seeing all this I'm asking: how is this game not going to fry my computer?
By believing in the all-mighty god you shall be able to play this game! Sign up for christianity RIGHT NOW and fight those heretic protestant plebs in the north to proove that you are worthy of god's exclusive historical and not church-washed game, Europa Universalis V!
132gig ram required
All I see from the map is that Paradox got new computers and our hardwares would be melted if we attempt to play this game, unless you have NASA's computers.
It's designed to keep your PC warm enough so you can make food on it and keep on playing.
EuIV is poorly optimized since its engine is more than a decade old. EuV will definitely run better
Shaved ludi feels like forming Byzantium as Georgea.
Its painful to experience
😂😂😂
Lmao😂
I would prefer trade to be dynamic, instead of the EU4 "historic" directions.
if I create a nation in the Americas, I should be able to pull trade goods, not just export.
Vic 3?
It should be like Vic 3's trade system. It should also use something similar to Vic3's economy system.
@@LoliPolice-bf7mwVictoria 3s trade system sucks, respectfully. It is not good. The economy system as a whole is pretty fun, but trade is seriously lackluster
@@pohorex6834 Sorry, I should have said their upcoming trade system. It is soon going to be overhauled and actually made good.
@@pohorex6834How?
As a Beneventano, now I feel represented. Thanks Paradox
As a good window?!? 😜😆
Goodwind gang represent
Terrain types changes in the Netherlands are a double-edged sword. Economically, it's definitely grassland. But when it came to defense, there were lots of swamps to protect the land.
They're splitting up terrain type (flatlands, hills, mountains, marshes) and vegetation (farmlands, grasslands, woods, forests) in this game. They only show the vegetation changes because I don't think they changed much in terrain type, but looking at the original version most of what is now the Netherlands is indeed marshes.
@@thomasvrielink299 didn't know. That is awesome. Thanks.
Turning swamps into polders could be an option : normally equivalent to farmlands for the strong eco, but with the option of flooding it for defensiveness at the expense of massive devastation.
Maybe give them province modifiers but make the terrain swamps
As long as they have the Nedersaksisch (low saxon) culture added i am happy
One thing that should definitely be removed from EU4 to the EU5 is the hidden Ludi modifier, that makes any nation Ludi plays automatically OP.
Honestly just sounds like you're complaining why ludi is skilled in the game but just my theory
@@Yomest-ip3tq ɘꓘoj a s'tI
@@Yomest-ip3tqthey're joking
@@frostonium he is probably joking as well.
@@Yomest-ip3tq I enjoy Ludi's content, but there's a border between being very good and some hard mechanics being balantly ignored in some of his videos
5:35 make it an event.
"Our lineage and our Realm"
>option 1 : keep the name "De barcelona"
>option 2 : take the name "De arago for all our Rulers, Heirs, and PU subjects.
Give it some bonuses if you want, but it feels like something the player should be able to choose in game, as it was a desision taken by tge rulers we're supposed to incarnate.
I want 2 things from eu5 that are bad in eu4:
- Combat where the AI doesn't defend its own land but instead gets access from every nation on map and goes to siege the most far-away provinces you own. AI should be programmed to defend the war-target and their capital.
- Game is too easy even if you play on very hard difficulty. There needs to be mechanics that makes it very hard to snowball, especially on hardest difficulty.
True its too easy. You have to play the game on Xorme AI hard difficulty to even have some challenge
Oh yeah this reminds me of one my most hated features in EU4 and Stellaris with wars. My target has a defensive pact with one or more nations but they are either weak or isolated and won't actually come to help. I occupy the entirely of my target countries territory but still can't enforce peace because the other country is technically still in the war. Either the target can be defended or it can not.
One thing in EU4 that I don't want to see in EU5? Forced retreats. Nothing is more annoying than my army being stuck in a retreat that I can't control or direct.
If EU5 wants to implement a "shatter" mechanic, I'd be happier if they had something like desertion where if your stack breaks, you get a bunch of stacks that break off and flee randomly as a punishment, but better that then losing an entire army because they choose to retreat to the next province over that's been sieged where they can't gain morale and then get immediately wiped, rather than retreating back through enemy land to a bordered ally with mil access.
I don't agree. It is actually a good and realistic implementation. You don't control your forces after being defeated.
Deep down your comment is just "make game easier"
Rebels as they are currently are simply a nightmare, even worse in Vicky 2, they don't really add fun to the game (mostly take it away) though I think they should obviously still exist in some form for the sake of historical accuracy.
Also I think war score is kind of silly and arbitrary. Historically it could take one decisive battle for some random ruler to have conquered massive swathes or take over the old administration of a country. Alexander the great didn't conquer half of Anatolia and stop for 10yrs because it was too highly developed and god came down to tell him his overextension was too high; leaving him to chip away at the Achaemenids over hundreds of years. Although, he did feel the effects of conquering a massive empire all at once, and had he not died early he would have had a heck of a time maintaining it.
I feel it is a big issue with power creep; if you can take over huge empires easily, a world conquest will be a breeze. But as it stands, with the development system, provinces become more and more costly to annex and you are left chipping away at some nation over hundreds of years to meet any goals you have. All in all I feel like wars ought to somehow be a bit more dynamic, as well as managing your country and conquests. If I am able to to occupy all of France and defeat their armies and they are in no state to fight, who are they to decline whatever peace deal I give them? I should be able to assert myself onto the throne and deal with the consequences later including rebellions, angry neighbors, angry nobles, and a nigh insured succession crisis upon ruler death. If you can hold down your conquests after thoroughly defeating a country, you should be allowed to keep it, but don't make it easy, let people fall to hubris and learn to manage what they take, imho.
100%, the only reason why they don't try that I think is that it's difficult and that it may make the game less fun to play and less gamey to a point where it's just fight one battle then take all their land. It would have to be balanced well for realism vs gameplay
More flavors of vassals would be cool, doesn't have to be as deep as CK, but they could do stuff like stuff becomes independent when your ruler dies, vassals that grow bigger inside your country, stuff that happens in CK but more streamlined to match the EU pace.
@@beaub152 I think that CK2 system of rebelions was quite good. And it is much older game.
I do not want to see imaginary mana points in Eu5.
Eu3 worked just fine without them
Best comment
@@masonhales already there are no mana points in eu5
0:42 that's easy - comet sightings
Already confirmed to be returning
Something that is currently on EU4 that I wish to be improved in EU5:
Paradox needs to design a system where late game army management (and warfare in general) is not overly tedious and boring. Too many units.. Too many provinces.. To many micro managing.
Auto drill disable when war is declared. Sometimes it’s just a paper war and you don’t need to reclick every damn army over and over.
I don't want a -50% governing capacity modifier for prussia. Super annoying + doesn't make sense. Prussia had gread administration
ikr, but I get why they did that, they have to balance it somehow
Prussia should just not have the army bonuses all the time unless they like put an insane amount of maintenance on their army
It's to represent Prussia being a very small and centralised state.
It's silly for Prussia to just get better military stats then any other nation with no downsides
never really liked this essentialism that EUIV portrays nations, prussia had a strong and efficient army because it's administration and funding were directed to it, it wasn't predestined to be like that
@@benjesterw Prussia united germany. Can barely do that in eu4 because of gov cap. Not historically accurate imo. They should've done it differently (like army/fort maintenance cost or less mana points or something)
I truly hope they tone down the essentialism of how they portray nations and that means less modifiers and more nation and army building mechanics. If a country is well managed and have the resources and adminstration to do it there is no reason why it should have a worse army than prussia.
Idk I like nations having uniqueness
@@RobotWithHumanHair. having diferent types of goverment that actually work diferently would be better and make for a more imerssive game with more replayability, i don't want everything to be the same because not all goverments functioned the same way, but i do expect that similar goverments function the same way to be able to perform the same under a well managed player without unecessary buffs. wanna actually make a prussia? increasing your military spending through the roof, modernize your army, drill then, the bonuses and malasses to that are under your perview to analyze. Prussia as we know was inevitable not because it was magical, but because of the history and social factors leading to it, in a game where there is player agency such essentialism become dumb and unimersive in a suposedly grand strat historical game
The other side of that is making nations completely interchangeable which is very boring. Maybe a compromise can be that nations like prussia and it's precursors start out farther down the military professionalism mechanics than others and also have mission trees that make it easier to develop such a military. That way you can still have your east frisian space marines without ignoring the historical trends that made prussia the way it was.
@@bjorntheviking6039 i can agree with they being further developed professionaly, however i think there should have been more mecanics inside the HRE that naturally facilitate the developments of such military instead of just mission trees, better more universal mechanics are better than very specific locked mechanics
i don't want to see concentrate dev because i personally don't like of "every player capital is 500 years in the future because they forced vadim from eastern poland to go to the capital to improve the tax administration there"
Trade Companies and how they currently work, it bothers me much more than it should.
As Sindh I can put the Baluchistan provinces in a trade Company, while being literally the provinces next to their capital.
But if I recall correctly they are mentioned to be working differently in EU5 so not too worried at this moment.
The problem is static, geographically determined regions - in Imperator Rome you could, for example, theoretically only have 3 territories, but since they are all in different "provinces" you will need to hire two governors. (Imperator territory = EU4 province and Imperator province = EU4 state, except larger - still grouping of smallest possible units)
And then as England you can't put anything in Europe in a trade company. I want my English Champagne Trading Co. damnit!!
The idea of a end trade note. And that trade have to flow in specific predetermined direction.
The colonial regional borders in the new world.
They were the counts of Barcelona, known as the House of Barcelona, so de Barcelona is totally correct. Kings of Aragon is the top nobiliary title but the house name is Barcelona. The Habsburg were not called von Osterreich.
As Ramon Berenguer 4th said:
"A king of Aragon will be just any king, but as the Count of Barcelona, I will be the best of the counts."
The thing is, when the marriage contract between Petronila of Aragon and Ramon Berenguer, count of Barcelona, was redacted it was specified that the children born of the marriage would legally belong to the dynasty of the mother, evidenced as well by the choice in names for the children of the dynasty from then on
Actually it's a lot more complex than that, it's explicitly stated that they will take the name "Daragó" as their primary designation. That's not the title but rather the name they go by. "d'Aragó" became the dynastic name.
It isn't until Peter the Great that the "Barcelona's" are put in the centre-place again. But even into the end of the "Barcelona" dynasty the dynastic competitor for the throne during the Compromís del Casp belonged to the house of "d'Aragó-Urgell" not "Barcelona-Urgell". So yeah, the dynastic name is "d'Aragó".
What I'm annoyed by is the fact that it says "de Aragó", and that place names like Xàtiva say Játiva, or Alacant being put in as Alicante, or Tàrrega saying Tárrega. I mean, they list out the entire coastline as being Catalan culture, put "Aragó" instead of Aragon as the dynastic name, and yet name all provinces in castillian...
2:04 A really good feature would be a Culture shifting mechanic, that changes cultures based on the expansion of the country or the long-standing conflicts between countries of the same culture.
I think that I don't want to see as many permanent crazy country modifiers from things like missions. Something thematic like the Inca losing penalties to Hills, Highlands, and Mountains but gaining penalties to lowlands is really cool....but there are some pretty infamous missions out there that give insanely powerful buffs that just break the game
I'm still on the fence about the character portraits. At least let me be able to toggle them off if I don't want them.
They said it could be made in to 2d with mods
Military should matter most on leader then >tech > Unique units > morale and discipline buffs. Historically a great General like Napoleon or Alexander could win countless victories and a terrible general like Colonel Custer could get his army wiped out by a technologically inferior enemy.
Would be nice to see Dutch territory changing at various stages of polder expansion.
what I want answered is simple; are they going to charge us for DLC's for EU5 for stuff they already included in the old games that we already payed for in Eu4, simply are they going to cut content from EU4, only to introduce it into EU5 again, through payed DLCs?
We know they will…
You really ask that? Look vic3
they should make the cannons capturble same as ships in EU4 and change the cannon units to support units that can operate cannons
You should be able to adjust maintenance on an army-level. Something we’d like to see in eu5 :)
One thing id really like to see is rebels converting from one type to another over time. Consider the American Revolution, they started as a particularist revolt, but over time they became separatists. I think this could go for the vast majority of rebel types, where they create a brand new tag with cores if theyre successful enough and it takes long enough.
I dislike how countries do not follow mission trees (How often you seen Riga getting 30 dev for mission on their own?) and how predictable world is for most of the games. (Strong Ottomans, France, Castille, Great Britian etc.) Just seeing diffrent outcome is very rare.
Paradox games are originally historical simulations, not sandbox games. Althistory is available for the players, but unless you touch directly to these countries or their regions i expect spain france england to be the dominant powers, since its historical.
Ikr but the current state of ai behavior is waaay too predictable and unflavored
Set lucky nations to random
@@simoncolin5939 But althistory happens since start in Eu4 anyway without player interactions. (Poland not getting PU, Burgundy inheritance, Emperor change, Teutonic join Hre etc.)
So it's trying to be "historical simulation" but on other hand it's not.
So having more variety would be fun. I am not saying "100% random each time" but at least sometimes.
What would be wrong in seeing Very strong Byzantine? It has even missions for that which AI never takes.
Or Burgundy taking France Vassals and dominating this Area?
Teutonic/Prussia owning Poland.
Riga making 30 dev mission and making it way harder for countries around (Cause of 25k units).
I mentioned 2 things in first post, but those are connected. If AI would "try" to do some missions, game would be even more intresting.
Missions, trees granting claims on entire regions, have to go. It messes up the diplomacy because it makes countries want land that they historically don't want (nor need). An example of this is me playing Brandenburg, where Russia broke the alliance due to gaining claims in Prussia through their permanent claims on the entire Baltic region. It’s super annoying and super frustrating.
I want to see taking provinces in war actually be a little more meaningful. For example: When you take the capital of a country and it only puts a slight dent in their war score, so you end up spending years taking every tile they have just to enforce your demands. Even worse when they have colonies everywhere.
Less linear rebels and more rebels events ans objectives flavour
Like eu4 byzantium releasing the Ottoman opponent should get him on the throne with friendly byzantium or smthng
The AI should be coded to defend the war goal and engage you when it’s fighting a defensive war. Far too many times have I been in a scenario where the AI will completely avoid you and let you siege down their entire country while they send their whole army thousands of miles away to siege down a random fort.
Ex: Playing as the Byzantines I was fighting a war over Syria (war goal was Aleppo) and I managed to siege down every fort all the way down the Nile without seeing a single Mamluk army. They marched all the way around the Arabian peninsula and then headed north to siege a random fort in Georgia. I won the war without fighting a single battle.
1:21
As a dutch person I came to this same conclusion when I realized all the territory around where I live used to be swamp land ... then I realized ... the dutch are just swamp germans 🤣my favorite tree is also a local swamp tree.
And yeah the north of the netherlands should be mostly swamp and should convert at some point, not sure if the engine can do that but it should.
The granularity is just mind boggling. Is EU6 gonna simulate invidual people walking around on the map?
In future episodes where you show the changes Paradox has made, can you please have a side by side comparison of the maps with how it was before the changes? Thanks Ludi, love the content bro
Something amazing about the eco mapmode is that in Normandy (where I lives) I can see the remnants of each of these trade goods when I visit historical stuff. We did had an iron mine around where I lived, but it's like not known at all now and I am flabbergasted by the fact that paradox put it there. The amount of research that have been put here is incredible.
the code must be so clean for them to be able to edit such drastic changes to the campaign map quickly ! this is pretty reassuring for the future of the game
Trying to unite Germany will literally take a mega campaign for eu5
I feel like they should ad more Fruits to Normandy, especially weird for me is that there is salt in Bayeux, as there was never that much salt produced in the area. That there is stone in Caen is pretty good as the stone of caen is famous
i want them to remove the lag from eu4, i think this is the most unpopular feature, and noone is going to miss it in eu5
I hope they will add more locations/provinces in eastern anatolia/western Armenia. It looks very weird and extremely sparcely populated.
Dice rolls/ Sieges going up to 99%
Why? Sieges were varied and a lot of factors made them take longer or shorter
The very system of dice rolls. It should be more predictible with supplies for defenders, how much the siege progresses...
The main thing is how slow war score is. Or how like the Mongles they would send messages to city's that they would not kill everyone if they just surrendered. Same thing for the longevity of sieges. I though that most seiges didn't take as long as in game and I would like to have that reflected. So maybe a fear debuff depending on the loyalty, nationalism or enemy army size
One thing I don't see many people bringing up, I wish development was cheaper and trade goods were more dynamic, especially manufactured goods. Things like fine china, glassware, oil paint, silk, Jewelry, dyes, paper, etc. were things that would significantly affect the local economy. The ability to sponsor local craftsman and guilds in your major cities to improve goods production and quality would feel a lot better than pressing the upgrade button on everything in your territory.
Goods requiring other goods to manufacture, and thus requiring you to make trade deals with other nations or go to war with them to manufacture them. For instance, if you're colonizing the Americas and wish to capitalize on the Tobacco trade, you're going to have to choose between making a major, difficult investment in getting free men and peasants to migrate and work on the farms, or take the easy quick option of participating in the Trans-atlantic slave trade which, Ideally, would be a monkey's paw trap as it often was in the real world, making you economically dependent on whoever controls the slave trade, and leading to catastrophic problems in the late game when random events like Toussaint L'Overteure or John Brown start sparking massive slave uprisings that devastate your colonial economy moments before your victory.
Other examples being needing wool, cotton or silk for textile production, lumber for naval supplies, and all developed goods that are not foodstuffs requiring some surplus of foods to manufacture. It doesn't have to be holistic, but I think it would lead to more interesting and realistic interactions in how both the player and the AI spreads out & it would make mercantilism and open trade much more tangible features of the game.
Q. What don't I want in EU 5 that's currently in EU 4
A. Bias from PDX's moderation staff.
they're a bunch of soyboys at least as far as the 'community managers/discord mods' are concerned
We need dynamic trade
Seems like that's already happening
I would want cavalry to be more useful but what i want to see more from eu4 is leaders being more influential
Please Ludi 🙏🙏🙏contact with Paradox to tell them that provinces development system needs to be changed and be related with size of the country. I'm tired of seeing in every campain that every provinces in HRE has +50 development after 200 years of playing BECOUSE there are milion of nations that spam development boost from theirs surplus of monarch points.
And from what I see on this map this will be even bigger problem if there will be this much of countries in HRE and nothing will be changed!
Agree. Gets frustrating to play into late game due to unnecessarily high AE you get from conquering provinces, especially in HRE. AE should be tied to big countries blobbing too much and too fast, not small countries taking a few provinces.
The development system will be different
There's a 100% chance that they will not have it work that way lol. I don't even think there's gonna be a spam of dev boost possible in the HRE mechanics, nor monarch points. (although not so sure about monarch points)
Well development in this is totally different and it goes from 0 to 100 ( I think Venice starts at 30) and it increases and decreases with prosperity and devastation. And there will not mana so no boosting a middle of nowhere village into a metropolis in seconds.
One thing I wish is that you were able to change Causus Belli within the first month of starting a war, cuz sometimes you miss click and now you have to siege down 30 forts to get ticking war scror
To see Barcelona as the Crown of Aragorn "capital" for that period, specially after having Valencia as Capital in EU4, is just insulting.
Great video as always !!
Colonies should more likely to get independent similar to big vassals
What I really did not like in EU4 are something we already know it wont be in EU5. Mana points & dev city with a "push a button to make a city from nothing to the biggest city in the whole world in 1 day". Army was a thing aswell. Having 800k professionnal soldier in 1600... We should not be able to have an army that big in this time period. ( talking abt professional army only )
I am going to enjoy this video. Keep up the great content.
0:51 No rebels every 5 minutes
It makes no sense for the Portuguese dynasty to be written in English, when the Burgundian one is in french. Either de Borgonha or de Burgogne. De Burgundy is just silly
I dont want to see the mechanic of « concentrate development » (i want the surexpension to be a bit more punitive) si that why
This map looks like toasting my PC before it is even loaded
Vic3 seems to run better than EU4 does these days, so I think it'll be fine.
Eu4 ain't just outdated because the graphics look potato.
@@Zaire82Victoria 3 does not run as well as it should at all. Until this last update it was abysmal, and will likely get worse again before getting better
1:37 honestly, I feel like this is the best way to model it, either you go fully regional and include brabantian, hollandish, flemish, limburgish etc or unite it all (also reasonable)
I hope the HRE mechanic where the emperor are called in to defend every HRE nation from other powers attacking them will be changed, maybe make it dependent on the relations between the emperor and the attacked HRE nation, or allow the nations neighbours to potentially join instead of the emperor, the emperor can not feasible defend 355 or so odd nations, then they would never be at peace.
More variety in war types as well as more realistic peace treaties where the victors all effectively debate about their gains rather than there being a war leader who decides everything
Q: what i don't want from eu4
A: missiontrees that you complete 100 years into the game and have no more missions left unless you switch nations (i do like to expand by doing missions tho...)
I hope they change institutions, either making them less Eurocentric, allowing them to have multiple spawn points or doing away with their current implementation and instead using the system for technologies like gunpowder
As a Waldensian, happy to see PDX read my comment and happy to see us represent!
I don't want modifier stacking to be broken. I love eu4 but anything can be broken if you stack it enough. I remember forming Russia as Theocratic Kazan in comp. MP. I stack fire damage received and arty combat ability, no amount of discipline or morale could beat that. Meta idea groups kinda ruin things because everyone picks the same stuff which is makes it boring.
For my county of Périgord i can’t be hassled to report but wool is not accurate at all. It would be paper actually as we had something like 3 to 5 paper mills in something like 25 kms
Long distance army supply/reinforce needs a rework. A Spanish invasion army at Moscow should not receive monthly reinforcements. They should have to march from Spain, and be open to attack en route. Same with colonial armies getting reinforcements from Europe automatically. They should have to come over in boats, which would put proper priority on naval power. This would make global wars much more expensive and realistic
I wouldn't like to see in EU5 what I would call "modifier mining" in EU4. Which is basically looking in 10 different tabs (Policies, Edicts, Decisions, Government Reforms, Estates, Religion...) all the possible things that could increase that specific modifier or mana that you are looking for.
I don’t know if the issue was addressed in eu4 dlc but when you are a hegemon power projection is literally impossible to get. That is very counter intuitive imo
I would love to be able to exchange territories in a peace deal, the same way Europe was redesigned after the Napoleonic Wars
I just hope we don't have to buy a crap ton of DLC just to enjoy EU5 like we have to do in EU4
Thx for video Ludi!
Would love to see a moer uppdated cultural map of scandinavia. If I can get the time to look into wich books from Dick Harrysson (one of the most accnowledged swedish historians), Id like to get them the feeback. But we should have a lot more than just swedish/norweegian etc.
Nice, now to wait 4 years and 56 dlcs to make the game playable
when did ludi become a guy who looks like he’s gonna give me an offer i can’t refuse
The AI shouldn't be able to cheat and walk through forts. If it were a fort that would block the player, then it should block the AI.
for what I don't want in eu5 from eu4:
(this is from an avarage player)
Is the mana system
I hate it because if you use it anything else then research then you will late with tech compare to anyone else
so I hope they abolise the mana thing or just reduce it a bit so you don't need it everywhere
My one thing is I hate how the AI snowballs and how easy it is for the player to snowball. I would love if civil wars/event rebels make new countries not rebels to make civil wars more dangerous. That gives the players later in the game a challenge and prevents the AI from snowballing too much
I hope they expanded the feudal/vassal system. Loved playing vassals in CK2 and 3.
I hope they don't focus too much on feudalism since this is EU5, not CK3. The sooner I can centralize my state into absolute rule, the better.
@@Mebsuta i hope that it will not be what you want too.
Very much dislike government capacity. Unnecessary feature tbh
I wish that an alliance was an agreement you have with a country against another country. Like mutually agreed upon enemies because it’s silly to have massive 6v6 wars over some OPM
I really hope they'll rework the Transylvanian region, as a Romaniann it was so frustrating seeing how bad the region was made in Eu4 (for exemple the fact that you can't form Romania as Transylvania).I hope this will change in Eu5
One feature i don't really enjoy to much is the estates mechanics being honest
5:15 isn’t “de burgundy” a branch of the Capet dynasty? So it doesn’t make sense for Portugal and navarre to have different dynasties. Edit: the same with “de Valois” in France and “de Bourgogne” and “Capet in burgundy. I might be wrong but I think “de bourbon” is also a Capet branch
So the game is in 1337? Does that mean we will be seeing the declining Norse settlements of Greenland? Like please I want that so bad.
Hi Ludi, been following you a while, amazing job! I'm a historian from Lleida, Catalonia, and altough our rulers used the d'Aragó name to legitimize the union (also because the title they had in Catalonia were several duchies and Aragó was a kingdom) the dynasty name was for sure De Barcelona and for consistency with everywhere else on the map should have that name.
Not really a feature but I didn't like how most (if not all) DLCs are just a bunch of buffs for reworked nations. In the later versions even Albania or Byzantium stopped being hard to play
There should be more events like Tanzimats in Vic 3 for Ottomans
One thing I never liked in all of PDX games is how it's possible to siege any territory, no matter how hard it is fortified. IE it is impossible to be defeated while sieging. Historically, it was possible for the sieging army to be defeated and even be cut down by the garrison pursuing them after. Also, there were territories, which were basically unsiegable for the time being, so they were left alone, to the point of becoming an exclave.
Fortunately it looks like worst EU4 features are already not in this tottaly-not-EU5 game: mana dev and fixed trade winds. What this game would really need is what EU4 also don't have: automation. Being able do micromanage is nice and all when you are playing tall, but going wide with these amount of locations will be unmanageable after certain point. Maybe something like sectors in Stellaris can help with that, so you can give unimportant regions to AI management.
3:34 That is how the borders of Navarra were in the 14th century
Aggressive expansion penalty should be limited to the countries in the surrounding areas and no more. There should not be a situation where Mamluks or Ajam is entering the coalition against France which conquered provinces in HRE
I actually hate the mission trees. What I originally loved about eu 3 and the original eu 4 was that you had the world at a certain date, and then it was just simulated and the ai reacted logically and dynamically to how the world evolved. Now instead everything is on rails to go a certain direction.
I agree with you. For so many countries that are represented in EU 5, the best solution would be to return dynamic missions, because you can't write a mission tree for all countries anyway.
@@oligano The dynamic missions are boring and generic though. I think most people would much rather have a somewhat guided mission tree (you can still ignore it) than to have generic radiant missions
0:42 Mana! No mana, please!