Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency.
I can't wait to play a thousand games of: Centralized, Innovative, Humanist, Plutocracy, Free Subjects, Conciliatory, Quality, Defensive, Naval, Capital Economy, Individualist, Free Trade, Outward, Liberalism
Damn in my case, it would be: Decentralized, innovative, spiritual, aristocratic, free subjects, conciliatory, quality, offensive, naval, capital economy, communalist/individualist (depending on the situation), free trade, outward, absolutism.
Because I actually like idea groups system a lot. While there are certainly better and worse idea groups, they allow you to shape each campaign in a different way. Things that don't work like this are government reforms, which are also an interesting concept in theory, but in the end I pick the same ones in most campaigns. Same thing in Victoria 3 in general, where you usually go for the same technologies and the same legislations in each campaign, unless you're doing some kind of meme or roleplay playthrough. My point is that when you have one preset category with two or just a couple of picks (like quality vs quantity), there is usually a meta that people will gravitate to. However, when you have over 20 idea groups and can choose any of them, with none being mutually exclusive, it allows for much more variety.
I wish they made harder for you to fully siege your opponent so you never always get 100% in deal and you need to bargain to get what you need in peace deals. "i want this area from you and it cost 50 score but i cant get that much without sacrificing my whole population. so here 30 score from battles and sieged land and 20 score worth money/trade deal/longer lasting peace deal/etc." i know johan said it would be hard to develope that 2sided agrements and would near imposible to prevent cheese outs but it would be perfect for historical accuricy.
This system seems way cooler than idea groups, also more representative of the directions that your government can take. My only worry is that having 12+1 decisions with only 2 options each, it's going to end up being a very simplified version of VIC 3 laws ( without the drawbacks of changing laws that Vicky has, like angering parties and factions). I feel like after a month from release players may already find a "meta" of the laws to pick and the ones never to pick cause they are useless.
Higher combat width requires high discipline and organization IRL. Maybe give it to quality side, and instead of that give quantity something like 'reserve pool'. In eu4 late game hundreds of thousands man waiting in reserve to battle is something I cannot believe. Quality should outperform and quantity should outsustain.
Seems pretty nice. A few remarks. As for wider frontage for quantity - where is the problem? No, it isn't said anywhere that army with quantity focus is worse in general and there is no reason to assume this. It only says it's about focusing on throwing more men to battle instead of focusing on highly trained soldiers. It makes perfect sense, army with quantity focus excels at organising and using masses. I'm not sure about gameplay details, but there is no problem in it's logic or realism. I don't like the other pair - land vs naval. No, it's not like those are two different paths to take for trade. That is total misrepresentation of reality and makes no sense. Moving things on water is just waaaaay better and that's it, even today with best technology - if you have huge cargo, then it's not even a comparison, use a ship. Then - connectivity, access to the sea is top important. Naval trade should be great for all countries, no matter the focus. There is no land alternative, no magical boost to movement and logistics on land. What they were even thinking? Naval vs land should be different - first should be just about maximising what is great for everyone, plus might be bonuses to protecting it and some extra perk, while land focus should provide something different entirely, boost to agriculture, to developing land infrastructure, something like that. It would work just as two different focuses. Other thing weird to me - individualism vs communalism - isn't that way too early? All human societies and cultures were highly communal. Modern western civilisation is the lone exception. I don't see any sense on making such alternative for all countries and before modern times.
Really interesting and I'm enthusiastic about it, just may be the modifier between offensive and defensive are really big. I am bad at math with all their equations behind the percentages but isn't -50% fort in exchange of only 10% siege ability a bit too harsh ? when Defensive only have a speed malus
Really everything in EU5 will be slow. Guess we won't ever see a world conquest, it seems impossible. While it's more realistic i fear most people won't like the snails pace expansion. After all many like the power surge you can have in EU4, at least i do.
I have faith in Johan, he took his lesson on I:R. I:R was developped for half a year, EU5 is in development for 4.5 years already. And probably at least over a year to go
@@ZlewikkTV i think this is sad for gaming industry. back than making game was less complicated, took less time and resource. now they took longer time and resource and it makes companies to take a lot less risks and challanges. all the new games start to look similur because they only produce games that they know it will sell. back than there were a lot of developers took a chance and go for it because it would take their 5 years. 6 month to was a costly but sacrificeable amounth of time to see if your project would hit or not.
I highly disagree based on all ~40dev diaries I've seen do far. And it's even funnier when you mention that when a core feature of eu2 and eu3 makes a come back
@@ZlewikkTV But they take a lot of this mechanics you have in Imperator Rome, and the game wasn't received all to well. I am not hyped at all for the game. But hey, i am not an early mover normally and sure will watch your letsplays for a while before i know if i like it. Never buy something on day one.
@@3komma141592653 they take a few good mechanics from Imperator Rome, but its version AFTER the 2.0 rework. And that version is really good and has great opinions (personally my 2nd favourite pdx game after eu4). Unfortunately even with decent traction, pdx just did not promote it and let the game die. Good example are sieges, where due to amount of locations it makes 0 sense to siege each manually, so they take a system (similar to I:R) where sieging fort will siege locations within its zone of control. How is it bad?
Link to VODs channel - www.youtube.com/@ZlewikkVODs
Cant wait for eu5 to release and once again have no idea on how to play
Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency, Maximize Joseon State Efficiency.
I can't wait to play a thousand games of:
Centralized, Innovative, Humanist, Plutocracy, Free Subjects, Conciliatory, Quality, Defensive, Naval, Capital Economy, Individualist, Free Trade, Outward, Liberalism
Damn in my case, it would be:
Decentralized, innovative, spiritual, aristocratic, free subjects, conciliatory, quality, offensive, naval, capital economy, communalist/individualist (depending on the situation), free trade, outward, absolutism.
Interesting. I don't know if I prefer this system or idea groups, but I'm curious to see how it'll work.
Because I actually like idea groups system a lot. While there are certainly better and worse idea groups, they allow you to shape each campaign in a different way.
Things that don't work like this are government reforms, which are also an interesting concept in theory, but in the end I pick the same ones in most campaigns. Same thing in Victoria 3 in general, where you usually go for the same technologies and the same legislations in each campaign, unless you're doing some kind of meme or roleplay playthrough.
My point is that when you have one preset category with two or just a couple of picks (like quality vs quantity), there is usually a meta that people will gravitate to. However, when you have over 20 idea groups and can choose any of them, with none being mutually exclusive, it allows for much more variety.
There is also 'idea groups' choice in each age via advances :)
@@ZlewikkTV I just hope they will be varied and balanced enough so I won't pick exactly the same ones in each campaign ;)
I wish they made harder for you to fully siege your opponent so you never always get 100% in deal and you need to bargain to get what you need in peace deals. "i want this area from you and it cost 50 score but i cant get that much without sacrificing my whole population. so here 30 score from battles and sieged land and 20 score worth money/trade deal/longer lasting peace deal/etc." i know johan said it would be hard to develope that 2sided agrements and would near imposible to prevent cheese outs but it would be perfect for historical accuricy.
more frontage = they throw bodies at the problem, makes sense to me.
Oh no tax meta bros the peasants are learning how to avoid taxes
This system seems way cooler than idea groups, also more representative of the directions that your government can take. My only worry is that having 12+1 decisions with only 2 options each, it's going to end up being a very simplified version of VIC 3 laws ( without the drawbacks of changing laws that Vicky has, like angering parties and factions). I feel like after a month from release players may already find a "meta" of the laws to pick and the ones never to pick cause they are useless.
@@MrThroning keep in mind you'll also have kind of idea groups in each age as unique group of advances to choose from
Guys, EU2 is back! :D
2025 IS eu5's YEAR
SLIDERS ARE BACK BABY!!!
idk why change idea groups in the first place.
Higher combat width requires high discipline and organization IRL.
Maybe give it to quality side, and instead of that give quantity something like 'reserve pool'.
In eu4 late game hundreds of thousands man waiting in reserve to battle is something I cannot believe.
Quality should outperform and quantity should outsustain.
Seems pretty nice. A few remarks. As for wider frontage for quantity - where is the problem? No, it isn't said anywhere that army with quantity focus is worse in general and there is no reason to assume this. It only says it's about focusing on throwing more men to battle instead of focusing on highly trained soldiers. It makes perfect sense, army with quantity focus excels at organising and using masses. I'm not sure about gameplay details, but there is no problem in it's logic or realism.
I don't like the other pair - land vs naval. No, it's not like those are two different paths to take for trade. That is total misrepresentation of reality and makes no sense. Moving things on water is just waaaaay better and that's it, even today with best technology - if you have huge cargo, then it's not even a comparison, use a ship. Then - connectivity, access to the sea is top important. Naval trade should be great for all countries, no matter the focus. There is no land alternative, no magical boost to movement and logistics on land. What they were even thinking? Naval vs land should be different - first should be just about maximising what is great for everyone, plus might be bonuses to protecting it and some extra perk, while land focus should provide something different entirely, boost to agriculture, to developing land infrastructure, something like that. It would work just as two different focuses.
Other thing weird to me - individualism vs communalism - isn't that way too early? All human societies and cultures were highly communal. Modern western civilisation is the lone exception. I don't see any sense on making such alternative for all countries and before modern times.
Really interesting and I'm enthusiastic about it, just may be the modifier between offensive and defensive are really big. I am bad at math with all their equations behind the percentages but isn't -50% fort in exchange of only 10% siege ability a bit too harsh ? when Defensive only have a speed malus
Reminds me of EU2 sliders
those sliders were really annoying in EU3 , especially if you needed westerinzation or other that gave you +8 global unrest...
Isn't it basically EU3 goverment system?
Really everything in EU5 will be slow. Guess we won't ever see a world conquest, it seems impossible. While it's more realistic i fear most people won't like the snails pace expansion. After all many like the power surge you can have in EU4, at least i do.
Gotta be honest i like it, but I only play anbennar so I'm sticking to eu4
I wish they weren't changing EU4 completely...
You can always just play EU4 if you dont need it to change :p
@@ZlewikkTV I AM ALMOST OUT OF ACHIEVEMENTS ZLEWIKK lol
@@ZlewikkTV Probably what i will do for the next decade, not even joking. Happened with City Skyline too.
I have faith in Johan, he took his lesson on I:R.
I:R was developped for half a year, EU5 is in development for 4.5 years already. And probably at least over a year to go
@@ZlewikkTV i think this is sad for gaming industry. back than making game was less complicated, took less time and resource. now they took longer time and resource and it makes companies to take a lot less risks and challanges. all the new games start to look similur because they only produce games that they know it will sell. back than there were a lot of developers took a chance and go for it because it would take their 5 years. 6 month to was a costly but sacrificeable amounth of time to see if your project would hit or not.
Sorry, but this game is NOT EU by any number. It looks far closer to the CK series with aspects of Imperator, EU, and Victoria molded into one.
I highly disagree based on all ~40dev diaries I've seen do far. And it's even funnier when you mention that when a core feature of eu2 and eu3 makes a come back
@@ZlewikkTV But they take a lot of this mechanics you have in Imperator Rome, and the game wasn't received all to well. I am not hyped at all for the game. But hey, i am not an early mover normally and sure will watch your letsplays for a while before i know if i like it. Never buy something on day one.
@@3komma141592653 they take a few good mechanics from Imperator Rome, but its version AFTER the 2.0 rework. And that version is really good and has great opinions (personally my 2nd favourite pdx game after eu4). Unfortunately even with decent traction, pdx just did not promote it and let the game die.
Good example are sieges, where due to amount of locations it makes 0 sense to siege each manually, so they take a system (similar to I:R) where sieging fort will siege locations within its zone of control. How is it bad?
@@3komma141592653 imperator is an EU game. It's a sequel to Eu:Rome.