anyone else worried what eu5 will look like now?

[weird name]

with vic 3 looking like utter garbage with no combat at all. and ck3 just being a worse ck2 gameplay, mechanic and story wise the only thing improved is visuals and UI and QOL type stuff.

eu5 could have combat gutted out like vic or something idk

[bri]

Originally posted by Preacher:

Vicky 3 prob gonna blow hard after the disaster of Ck3

I'd say it more based on who the game director is but yeah, if the general studio direction is CK 3ish then it will 100% suck.

[Njorl]

I'm not worried at all.
I see no reason why I would ever give up a paid-for EU4 for an EU5 which would probably be essentially the same game for much more money.

[nanda.ag]

Vicky is vicky and EU is EU and hoi is hoi and so on... Maybe combat system in Vickey 3 is better who knows that leak and PDX con ppl not wistanding no one have played the final version yet

[nanda.ag]

Originally posted by Boozehound:

I did a survey recently regarding the looks of EU5. It does seem a tad more cartoony. It was confirmed that it will look this way when it releases. I did vote however for the "avatar" of your King/Queen to look more photorealistic but out of the choices available.....it's going to be cartoony.

What eu5?

[grognardgary]

Just love it when people start critiquing crap that doesn't even exist yet.

[Mindzen]

Originally posted by grognardgary:

Just love it when people start critiquing crap that doesn't even exist yet.

It was leaked and is probably 99% the same game that will be released.

I stopped playing 5 minutes in when I was instructed to build more buildings to produce Tools because the price is too high to bring the price down.

Ummmm ... thats not how economies work Paradox.

The new games are all a joke.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by thpf77:

I stopped playing 5 minutes in when I was instructed to build more buildings to produce Tools because the price is too high to bring the price down.

Ummmm ... thats not how economies work Paradox.

Ummm...that's exactly how economies work. It's a basic illustration of the relationship between scarcity and price wherein enhanced production of a good formerly in short supply leads to a concomitant reduction in cost. The fact that you don't understand elementary economic principles doesn't invalidate Victoria III's economic model. In fact, the opposite is the case.

[CthuluIsSpy]

I actually thought CK3 looked pretty ugly and I hated the new UI.
Not having your coat of arms and all of those button near the top felt wrong, and everything looked dull and washed out. It was really hard for me to get into.

What's this about Vic3 not having any combat? That doesn't seem right given the time period, and in the gameplay trailer there was some gunfire

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by CthuluIsSpy:

What's this about Vic3 not having any combat? That doesn't seem right given the time period, and in the gameplay trailer there was some gunfire

There's plenty of warfare, but you don't directly control your forces. You assign objectives and commanders instead.

[Mindzen]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

[Ummm...that's [b]exactly[/b] how economies work.

no its not. The question is "Why is the price too high?"

lack of resources? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Artificial scarcity to pump up the price? Building more buildings would defeat the purpose.

Disruption of trade routes to transport resources/product? More buildings doesn't help that.

Strikes? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Tariffs? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Rebellion/War in a resource rich region? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

I could go on ... hopefully you get the point.

[Art]

Yep, been saying this for ages. EU5 won't be good for a solid 2-3 years to wait for DLC etc, like CK3.

[CthuluIsSpy]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by CthuluIsSpy:

What's this about Vic3 not having any combat? That doesn't seem right given the time period, and in the gameplay trailer there was some gunfire

There's plenty of warfare, but you don't directly control your forces. You assign objectives and commanders instead.

Not sure I like the sound of that. That sounds even less exciting than the current battle system. At least with the current system there is still a degree of tension and strategic planning as you have to move your troops to where they need to be and watch out for terrain, army comp and attrition. That new system sounds dull to me, basically a card game.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by thpf77:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

[ Ummm...that's [b]exactly[/b] how economies work.

no its not. The question is "Why is the price too high?"

lack of resources? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Of course it does. The price is high because the production of tools, a finished industrial good, is low. You don't grow socket wrenches in a field. You produce them in a factory. Build more tool factories, make more tools, scarcity decreases and so does the price.

This isn't even college level economics. It's grade school level stuff.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by CthuluIsSpy:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

There's plenty of warfare, but you don't directly control your forces. You assign objectives and commanders instead.

Not sure I like the sound of that. That sounds even less exciting than the current battle system. At least with the current system there is still a degree of tension and strategic planning as you have to move your troops to where they need to be and watch out for terrain, army comp and attrition. That new system sounds dull to me, basically a card game.

And that may be true. Or it may not be. We'll find out when we experience it.

[CthuluIsSpy]

Originally posted by thpf77:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

[Ummm...that's [b]exactly[/b] how economies work.

no its not. The question is "Why is the price too high?"

lack of resources? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Artificial scarcity to pump up the price? Building more buildings would defeat the purpose.

Disruption of trade routes to transport resources/product? More buildings doesn't help that.

Strikes? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Tariffs? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

Rebellion/War in a resource rich region? Building more buildings doesn't help that.

I could go on ... hopefully you get the point.

Well it depends, if natural resources aren't a problem then domestic production would drive down the price of products as you wouldn't have to worry about imports.
If you do have to import in natural resources (like coal, iron, etc) to build those products then yeah, it won't really work as the high prices would be due to those resources.