Paradox announces Europa Universalis 5

Emedan

Member
Didn't see a thread for this. Any other Grand Strategy fans here perhaps? I'm pretty damn hyped seeing how EU4 is my most played game ever with well over a 1000 hours in it. From what I can see of the various gameplay vids that's out there it seems to be more to form than Victoria 3 ever was.


 
Yep, watched the reveal and bunch of videos from EU IV YouTubers (RedHawk, Ludi, etc.). EU IV is one of my most played games of forever so I am quite looking forward to EU V.

Just like TintoTalks indicated EU V is going to be god damn dense with a learning curve the height of Mt. Everest, lol.

That's a lot of Vicky 3 DNA in there mixed in with Imperator. And while I love EU IV and Imperator I am not a huge fan of Vicky 3. I think the sheer complexity here will push away a lot of folks. EU IV leaning curve already was already quite steep and EU V looks to be far beyond that.
 
Yep, watched the reveal and bunch of videos from EU IV YouTubers (RedHawk, Ludi, etc.). EU IV is one of my most played games of forever so I am quite looking forward to EU V.

Just like TintoTalks indicated EU V is going to be god damn dense with a learning curve the height of Mt. Everest, lol.

That's a lot of Vicky 3 DNA in there mixed in with Imperator. And while I love EU IV and Imperator I am not a huge fan of Vicky 3. I think the sheer complexity here will push away a lot of folks. EU IV leaning curve already was already quite steep and EU V looks to be far beyond that.
I enjoyed Victoria 2 quite a bit but honestly haven't even tried Vicky 3. Have high hopes for EU5 though, they seem to focus on the conquering which is as it should be with interesting new mechanics to that end.
 
After how Paradox have handled (or rather not handled) Imperator: Rome, they can go fuck themselves.
Why, what did they wrong?
Anyways i still wanna play EU4 but it's so complex i would have to learn it from scratch.
 
Last edited:
From what I've heard, it's a very ambitious title where the devs are taking great risks. It's not just a regular sequel. Could turn out great, but after Civ 7 I'm a bit worried.
 
Paradox is a no-go for me at this point.
Between their abandoning games and nickel-and-diming consumers with countless small DLCs, they can shove it.
 
Awesome! I'll await the reviews to see if the base game is sufficiently feature complete. Paradox doesn't have the greatest track record with its copious amounts of DLC. Guess now is the time to play EU4 though!
 
Ah yes, yet another Excel spreadsheets but now with DLCs.

Snark aside, Paradox do need a good game after the series of small and big disasters.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if modern Paradox can produce EU4 level game at this point.

From what I've heard, it's a very ambitious title where the devs are taking great risks. It's not just a regular sequel. Could turn out great, but after Civ 7 I'm a bit worried.
Has CIV7 been released already?
 
Last edited:
I'd say EU4 is the least complex and easiest to get into when it comes to Paradox's grand strategy game. Give it a go!
Nah, that would be probably CKIII or Stellaris. EU IV can be deceptively difficult. That said it's a great game and definitely worth learning.

EU V is going to be harder to pick up, IMO.

Edit: I can also easily recommend Stellaris (some of DLC are not worth it, others definitely are) and CKIII (more character and machinations based vs other Paradox titles).
 
Last edited:
Released it in a shitty, unfinished state and then left it to rot after it didn't sell well.
Imperator 2.0 plus Invictus is overall a great game. Paradox even patched it up more recently.

It's a shame the game didn't sell though and we didn't get more DLC.
 
I enjoyed Victoria 2 quite a bit but honestly haven't even tried Vicky 3. Have high hopes for EU5 though, they seem to focus on the conquering which is as it should be with interesting new mechanics to that end.
Vicky 3 is divisive. It released in a fairly bad state from perspective of differentiation between countries and absolutely terrible warfare system.

It's now much better (if you include DLC) but still needs more work. Paradox are producing more fixes, overhauling a lot of insufficient parts and working on more interesting DLC packs.

It is at the end a game more focused on economy and politics vs anything else. Warfare isn't going to become amazing all of a sudden.

EU V looks to have inherited a lot of the economic model from Vicky 3 but has a lot more interesting approach to war and overall systems.
 
Last edited:
I've never actually played one of these but meant to give them a try. Maybe this will be the one I finally get around to.
 
Nah, that would be probably CKIII or Stellaris. EU IV can be deceptively difficult. That said it's a great game and definitely worth learning.

EU V is going to be harder to pick up, IMO.
Yeah, I love Crusader Kings. Most probably under my Top10 games of all time. But I could never really get into Victoria, EU and HOI (didnt tried very hard...mind you). Also never understood where the differences were between these three games. They all seem to be very similiar on first look.
 
Imperator 2.0 plus Invictus is overall a great game. Paradox even patched it up more recently.

It's a shame the game didn't sell though and we didn't get more DLC.
I am actually fine with no more DLC, since I think their DLC-business model is ass. And yeah, 2.0 patched some things up after a long time of nothing. But essentially, it's up to fan mods if you want to play it in a good state...

So essentially, I don't see why Paradox should get my money for shit work.
 
So essentially, I don't see why Paradox should get my money for shit work.
Because without Paradox...the grand strategy genre would be in a very awful state? I hate their DLC politics as well, but they have some very cool and unique games in their portfolio and there is not much alternatives.
 
Yeah, I love Crusader Kings. Most probably under my Top10 games of all time. But I could never really get into Victoria, EU and HOI (didnt tried very hard...mind you). Also never understood where the differences were between these three games. They all seem to be very similiar on first look.
HOI is mostly a war game basically. Fronts, different units, military research focus, more complex supply chains, and so on. All focused on WWII.

Victoria III - economic simulator of mid to end 19th century through beginning of the 20th. The main focus is economy, politics, revolutions, with warfare being an afterthought. The latter is somewhat ironic considering the time period.

EU IV is a mix of a bit of everything with the longest timeline stretching from basically Renaissance to Napoleonic War. It abstracts a lot of smaller details that are the focus of other Paradox games, but can be deceptively difficult to master. It's also my favorite Paradox game overall and my favorite "map painter" 😂.

I am actually fine with no more DLC, since I think their DLC-business model is ass. And yeah, 2.0 patched some things up after a long time of nothing. But essentially, it's up to fan mods if you want to play it in a good state...

So essentially, I don't see why Paradox should get my money for shit work.
People didn't buy it. Paradox has to cut their losses at some point. I agree that they probably cut out too early but the game is quite good in a state it is.
 
Nah, that would be probably CKIII or Stellaris. EU IV can be deceptively difficult. That said it's a great game and definitely worth learning.

EU V is going to be harder to pick up, IMO.

Edit: I can also easily recommend Stellaris (some of DLC are not worth it, others definitely are) and CKIII (more character and machinations based vs other Paradox titles).
Base game EU4 is easier to get into than CK3 I'd say. Stellaris is the easiest but since it's not traditional map painting but Sci-fi i don't count it. I agree, EU5 looks to have way more complicated systems than EU4.
Vicky 3 is divisive. It released in a fairly bad state from perspective of differentiation between countries and absolutely terrible warfare system.

It's now much better (if you include DLC) but still needs more work. Paradox are producing more fixes, overhauling a lot of insufficient parts and working on more interesting DLC packs.

It is at the end a game more focused on economy and politics vs anything else. Warfare isn't going to become amazing all of a sudden.

EU V looks to have inherited a lot of the economic model from Vicky 3 but has a lot more interesting approach to war and overall systems.
I agree, seems like EU5 is a mix of the more complex economic systems of Vicky and the warfare in EU.
 
Because without Paradox...the grand strategy genre would be in a very awful state? I hate their DLC politics as well, but they have some very cool and unique games in their portfolio and there is not much alternatives.
Well, luckily for them, they've got enough diehards who will buy anything they put out, so I don't see Paradox going out of business anytime soon. But for me, the argument of "because they're the only ones doing this type of product" is not good enough. But I genuinely wish everyone a good time with EU5.
 
After how Paradox have handled (or rather not handled) Imperator: Rome, they can go fuck themselves.
That was shameless. It could have been a contender but they saw the work needed and said "We're good."

And, as always, you buy all the DLC (some great, some good, most meh/bad) only to have the sequel/next in line game released bare bones so you get to do it all over again with much the same DLC. I guess it isn't as egregious with EU4 because it was supported for so long.

That said, I'll probably end up buy this. I'm a sucker for this stuff.
 
Top Bottom