They learn from imperator and mods? hmm its really good news and im impressed. If they continue to talk with audience and do some fixes (from things that dont work in eu4 and imperator - like cultures) it can be really good game
I played MEIOU once like years ago, but a distance based control system was something I always wanted. I also had the idea of setting up "colonial capitals" or "regional capitals" which hopefully might be a thing.
Those are ancient M&T mechanics still in it AFAIK. They called it Communication Efficiency - the further a province from your capital, the more autonomy it has, the more revolt risk it has, & the less taxes, trade, & manpower it gives. This could be partially offset in a few ways: 1) Building naval trade port networks. These needed to be somewhat spread out. 2) Road networks. The more roads the better. 3) Regional capitals. Expensive, both for the local province the regional capital's in & the overall country's admin costs. Communication efficiency would worsen due to terrain & actual physical distance between provinces.
Culturally named water bodies would be so sick. Imagine you do a Roman Restoration as either the Byzantines or other rump state and once you restore Rome and control the Med it changes to "Mare Nostrum" on the map!
Control gives access to the "potential tax base" of a location? Could we maybe get provincial corruption and state corruption as separate mechanics? that would be quite cool to see also, Johan said he likes Voltaire's Nightmare - Germany will be glorious to look at :)
It looks like they are straight up importing all the infrastructure systems of Imperator into this game, which is amazing. What I love most about Imperator is that you can spend hours just developing your country, building roads, growing cities etc. Playing tall in that game is actually a fun and rewarding experience. In EU4, you just count dev clicks. The control system also rewards you for properly building up your infrastructure and expanding at a reasonable pace rather than just blobbing until you own everything. The market system is still unclear as far as I can tell. The screenshot at the end looks a bit like an EU4-style trade node (Riga) with naval presence increasing trade power. If trade nodes do come back, I really hope they will be dynamic this time. Maybe more on that next week.
Control is gonna make revolts and shit way more interesting. I imagine its going to have a huge role in, say, China's collapse, or how Portugal was roughly on par with Castile not *despite* being smaller, but in part because of it.
Gosh, and the sea based control is really gonna give places with a larger coastline an advantage, albiet one more vulnurable to war. France might need to spend more on building roads than England for potentially less gain, but if someone can break England's navy... they'd be fucked.
The fact that they are actually responding to community feedback (with the estates) makes me so much more confident they can really pull this off. We might have a masterpiece on our hands.
I wonder if this will allow the player to mimic the trade presence Portugal had in India and the East Indies without controlling much territory outright. If you control the sea and establish naval superiority in the area, you reap the benefits of trade. Currently in EU4, you''re kinda forced to control the territory outright.
Maritime presence is basically from EU3 Magna Mundi where you get constant debuffs from pirates that only really go away when you take two naval ideas and start patrolling your coast. Hopefully the AI understands and builds coastal patrols. But basically this means that naval patrol/protect trade actually does something different than just increase your trade power or steering in a node or decrease privateers. Maybe we’ll even get non-tag pirates
Also Hope they Add economic warfare. Being able to cripple another nation by simply denying them trade through naval or trade route blockades, embargoes and etc
Man just keeps giving us what we want with these Tinto talks, my only fear is that they won't be able to deliver on the hype we are building but I remain hopeful.
So happy to see Imperator's strong influence. The game wasn't perfect, but quite a few of the systems were damn close, absolutely the peak of the genre in many ways just held back by its launch state. Honestly, seeing these lessons pulled makes me hopeful that this might be the best launch state of a Paradox system in ages. Because they're pulling from the systems they spent time building.
When he says looking backwards to older games in regards to the economic system, I hope he also includes taking a few ideas from Victoria 1. In some regards, the economic system in that game was better than both sequals. For example, the nebulous 'world market' would provide an additional constant demand for goods unconnected to POP demands. Because of that, there was *always* at least a little bit of demand so factories could turn a profit. In the later Victorias, pop demand simply can not keep up with the pace of industrialisation, which leads to a constant cycle of crashes.
So far it feels to me that they are absolutely on track to create the best paradox game yet. Honestly I'm so satisfied that I'm starting to get nervous not to become too hyped because it feels to good to be true and I fear another vicky 3 disaster. Don't get me wrong I don't believe that's going to happen but still..
Lambert, would you at all be able to do a video on an overview of the situation and history at 1337? There’s a few videos on this already, but mostly focused solely on Europe and/or shallow in terms of actual historical knowledge. Appreciate you’re not a historian either, but would be interested in your thoughts on what countries in 1337 might be interesting and why, as well as anything you think interesting.
In EU2 there was no fixed Trade Centers, and player can raze and create Trade Centers. Trade Centers there also was dynamic and will grow wide if you care about it, or not, if you don't play good (not blobbing everything around it)... Johan said he takes as references also EU2 and EU3, not just EU4... I think it closer to EU2 trade system, then what we have in EU4 now. PS. And I like more dynamic systems then static.
I love Imperator: Rome and it’s pop system, I find it more fun than the EU4 one. Pops should be more dynamic changing religion and culture over time. The army system were you could use more types of unit types was also great. Imperator: Rome is a very underrated game and it saddens me it never took off. After EU3/EU4 and CK2, IR is the most played game I got from paradox. The least liked game is properly Victoria 3 and sadly, CK3 just don’t catch me as much as CK2. The new games lack good music, that the older games have. I love the fact that the older games have rock music, specially the Swedish rock band they included in EU4 and HOI4. Paradox, if you are reading, we need more good music pacs like EU4 and CK2 got.
would love to see the estates get some more interactivity in EU5. currently most internal politics in paradox games is down to randomness, I'd love to see them allow the burghers and nobility to make decisions and power plays with some logic behind it. maybe the burghers invest in buildings etc, and the nobility constructs bailiffs, etc to increase their political power (and also your control)
EU5 but with some features from EU4, Imperator and Vicky on top adding some new stuff. Can we hype now or wait? With the market and maritime stuff it seems you should be able to annoy (up fuck up) your rivals with your superior navy just hanging out in seazones. I expect it would (and should) create a casus belli at some point due to that. Yay for navies to have some purpose.
Hey Lambert, since you’re a EU4 youtuber the devs will hear you better, can you suggest to them if they’ll add 1. Supply Routes to make wars more strategic and prevent no cb wars on other continents without proper securing of supply lines, this will also make Roads more important 2. Better Rebels so they can actually pose a threat when they spawn instead if being measly nuisance like EU4 3. Larger Empires being Harder to administer so that late game isn’t a boring grind with no threats 4. AI war calculations so that if your entire army is occupied on one front, the AI can understand that you can’t defend your other borders properly so they take advantage and gang up on you
8:00 I think you're more or less dead on with this one Lambert. Market control and mercantilism were huge in this era, sounds like we're getting a much deeper and immersive trade system for P:C!
Hopefully the Eco system is Victoria-ish with Production of Goods not giving flat income but providing goods that are traded via the market system and allowing for trade wars be more important (as they are pretty useless in EU4) with maybe even having other countries unite under one market (Vicky3 style) like the hansa. Additionally as metioned i think locations should be able to change goods production depending on the access to raw goods like sheep, wood, iron, etc. and on their share of burghers, commoners as well as their status as rural, town and city. Maybe we can even see more micro in military production with cannons and different variants being a thing that can be produced or imported based on ressource access. But thats till next week. HYPE!
I hope estates aren't just based on culture (or religion), but laws. Dhimmi certainly don't make sense as-is in say France, but they were a specific legal construction. All estates should be- Cossacks, while a specific culture, existed as they did within Eastern European powers because of their specific legal status and variable autonomy. These more variable estates should solve some problems and create others- tradeoffs you should consider instead of Eu4's "more is better" (generally. Among the many reasons the Mughals are obscenely strong is they stack so many estate benefits, many of which are just superior to the default)
I disagree with adding more estates tbh. Well not fully, but i am worried that they dilute the power of all estates. What threat will ever be a Dhimmi estate? Why should i care about them when their power is so low? But they just lower the rest of the estates power and make them all altogether less threatening. Ill have to actually see how they work. How do they rebel, under what circunstances, what actions can they do against the player and what trouble can they cause for you etc to see if it work or doesnt
Other estates make scenarios like cossack revolts, janissary uprising, etc. more reasonable and having them not be an estate makes those "disasters" be less overlookable and seem to random though that stuff was not covered yet.
I just thought of a mechanic and want some feedback in how good it is. Imagine if each estate had factions inside them for example commoners had conservative, Liberal, libertarian, collectivist factions and the policies and Ideas you run in the game affect the types of bonuses they provide and if your dominant factions don't line up in all your estates while they give you stupid good tech bonuses they accelerate corruption and disasters. Does this make sense? Or does it only sound good to me?
all roads lead to Rome, the same way as the future Empire of mine. of course, in my case, all roads lead to Helsinki. so beware Sweden, Finnish roads will reach from Vyborg to Stockholm and from Helsinki to Lapland. I have to say that I love how you can build roads or railways in games, there is something special about it. Great Video !
I'm a bit surprised that the control concept appears to only involve the crown/capital. In my mind, every country is made up of a number of power centers (towns/cities) of varying weight, of which one is the capital, with rural settlements being associated with the local center through trade and taxes. Towns and cities will naturally cluster together, creating regions, as a result of geography. So you get all of these centers with their own elites that the crown will need to exert control/power over. If Kalmar were to grow wealthy and populous, surpassing Stockholm, I imagine Kalmar would throw off their chains. I'm curious to see if there will be anything like this.
@Lord_Lambert I don't see a competing source of control - there's lack of crown control, but not "Kalmar elites" control. Looking at the map screenshot, it doesn't seem like control is affected by local population, wealth or anything else approximating local power. The bailiff, from my understanding, will increase crown control locally, which is slightly different from reducing local power (since that would be a value derived from local conditions, independent of the capital).
I hope food is stored on a national level, or trade is different. Micro-ing trade between provinces to feed them is my least favourite aspect of imperator
I’m not going to get hyped up because I was for imperator, pre purchased the game and got my wallet cleaned out with false promises. I have no faith that paradox can produce anything more than a protein laced fart with its latest entries in Vic 3 and Cities 2.
great commentary! I'm loving the DDs so far. I just don't get all this hatred for Vicky 3, i love the game (i know it's not perfect but it's getting better and better with each update and it's very complex. Also next DLC looks amazing, i hope it will make the game get the love it deserves)
I was massively hyped for Victoria 3, and was let down so utterly by how bad it was that I am quite bitter towards the game. Im glad you can enjoy it, but it's not for me.
@@Lord_Lambert I understand, i was dissapointed too when it came out, but as time's gone on the devs are really putting all the efforts to make it amazing (and they are succeding, to me). I suggest you try it again if you haven't lately(only if you want, of course). Either way, keep up the good work!
Placing a navy? Yuck. Seems like navies will be just floating armies again. That's essentially a dealbreaker for me. A navy should operate in a sea area or region.
@@Lord_Lambert navies being static is completly unrealistic. In the age of sail you must move where weather and wind tells you. If the way you command navies are vic2 or eu4 at lunch that's a dealbreaker for me. I worked several years for the national maritime museum of Sweden and EU4 naval mechanics are just pure nonsense. A navy operate out of a port and can partol an area but even in inland seas and sealanes the chance of forcing a battle against an unwilling opponent is next to nil. The kind of naval dominance we see in eu4 is completly unrealistic and it undermines historical outcomes like the dutch being able to hold of the Spanish for 80 years using light ships. Since there is no way for a ship to determine your longitude except dead reckoning they don't know where they themselves are with any accuracy much less being able to find other fleets over the vastness of the ocean.
As long as they don't take the blobbing AI of Imperator, it sucks to want to play a chill game and get steamrolled because you didn't optimaly eXpand and eXterminate your opposition.
We have yet to see all the various mapmodes. Its already been confirmed that what were seeing is the flat map, which implies there is a less flat map. Also plenty of time till release for these to be polished up, changed, and improved.
At this point it seems like Paradox just publish sub par games, wait for a talented mod team to overhaul, then integrate the mod into their next games.
I don't know, while playing Imperator I basically kept looking at features and going 'wow I wish this was in Eu4' for quite a while. I actually really hope they take stuff from Imperator.
