Mid to End Game is no fun and pointless to continue playing

[cupoe]

I have played EU V since the first time it released. All the campaign always start with lots of fun. A lot of things to consider, do and build. But every campaign after a period of 100-200 years (around 1500-1600) always become so boring.

Few reasons:
1. My country have become too rich that I don't even know what is the point of more money
2. or become too big and due to proximity, conquering more lands doesn't feel beneficial
3. or become too powerful that there is no challenge

I have played EU 1, 2, 3, 4 and usually this problems did not occur so early (maybe by 1700s), unless of course if playing strong nations. In EU5 my campaign always become so boring by 1500s-1600s that i dont feel like continuing.

Few suggestions:
1. In some way reduce the amount of money generated from RGO and buildings. I think the economy balance right now is broken. Usually by 1500-1600, most countries if played right will be swimming in money.
2. Proximity is interesting, but, the fun in Europa universalis game have always been making your country stronger. What is the point of further expanding if until certain point there are no added benefit unless we create more vassals?
3. Maybe if point 1 is fixed and money is not so abundant anymore, the game will not be as easy as it is right now, and each campaign will not hit the boring threshold too fast.
4. Also I think the coalition need some work. It is so easy to reduce antagonism.

Discuss?

[KroganCharr]

EU4 starts in 1444, EU5 starts in 1337, so about 100 years earlier. EU4 campaigns usually stop being interesting somewhere between 1600 and 1700, so if it's 1500-1600 for EU5, that's basically in the same ballpark. Although it takes much, much longer to get that far into a EU5 campaign, the problem remains that half of the time period covered ends up being barely touched by players in most campaigns, so any content developed for those specific eras is essentially wasted.

I'm not sure there's much that can be done about this balance wise. A reasonably skilled player will always outpace the AI by midgame, and that's okay. I'm not sure artificially increasing the mid to late game difficulty by applying arbitrary debuffs would make the game better, it'd only reinforce the proximity problem that growing no longer feels rewarding. I've criticized the proximity system as a whole before, but most people disagreed with me, so I'll not reopen that debate.

My solution, and I know I'm going to get pushback on this, is properly developed bookmarks. I know that everything that isn't 1444 was essentially ignored in EU4, but I do not believe this is because alternative bookmarks are not interesting to players entirely, I believe that was a self-reinforcing cycle. No bookmark in EU4 was ever developed as thoroughly as 1444, almost all the mechanics and content (idea groups, events, mission trees, achievements etc) were designed with the assumption that the player starts in 1444. The more attention was given to developing to 1444, the fewer people played anything other than 1444, and the less attention was given to the other bookmarks. Alternate EU4 bookmarks are essentially just 1444, but the AI played the early game for you. Plus, for achievements especially, for many of those the primary challenge was time ("achieve X by year Y", or in some cases like Three Mountains just the game end was an effective time limit), so even if a start date other than 1444 were allowed, and achievement hunter has no reason to play anything other than 1444, it'd just be a disadvantage.

So, rather than a dozen plus bookmarks and a free day by day start date selector like EU4 has, what I'd like for EU5 is a solid 3-5 well developed start dates that cover different eras, each of them having their own unique reasons to play them, and their own sets of content. In EU4 I would have said that unique mission trees per bookmark would be a major pull, as they would cover the unique situations and challenges of that nation in that specific time period, rather than just having the 1444 mission tree but have it half finished. I'm not sure what the EU5 equivalent would be, because DHEs in my opinion simply aren't an adequate replacement, but you get the idea: alternate bookmarks need to be equally well developed compared to 1337, and I believe players will actually choose them, and thus experience the late game eras that almost nobody bothers with when playing from 1337.

[tonypa]

They already tried to include Complacency, which was basically designed to make it more difficult for extremely successful player who normally would be human one as AI rarely goes into world-conquering rampages. It failed because players disliked being punished for being too good at the game, it matters not if you are too good at economy and have nothing to spend money on, or too good at warfare and have killed off every potential rival.

Personally I find the control/proximity mechanic one of truely good innovations in EU5. It is both historically accurate as all the emprires fell because they were unable to control areas too far off the center. And it has soft cap, making the endless expanding possible but pointless.

I do wish some other hugest-empires-killing-causes would find their way into EU5 too. For example common causes of empires to break down were internal troubles. Civil war. Multiple claimants to the throne. Constant assassinations of rulers. None of this is present in EU5, it is trivially easy to keep Stability and Legitimacy high as both are simple functions of money. Once you have enough gold, you basically eliminate whole reason for countries falling apart. Plus the stats of your ruler HAVE NO effect on the country, you can have absolute idiot on throne and still every noble stays perfectly loyal. Civil wars should be very difficult to win. Your governors should constantly scheme to break off and start their own dynasties. Bad rulers should have devastating effects on the country.

I also wish the game would be able to implement time factor. You did not have global network of electronic chatbots back then. If something happened, like war broke out or new tax was implemented, for large countries news about it traveled several months if not years. Diplomats for example should travel by roads or ships, trying to reach their destination to carry the message. Sometimes they also die during the travels, attacked by wolves or bandits or plague. Calls for joining a war or providing money or marriage should take literally years to reach other side of continent, not instant result of "everyone joined same moment war started". You should be able to bribe enemy diplomats passing by, take their letters away or replace with forgeries. Because that is how it worked in old days.

[ABoxFullOfKittens]

I have neighbors with 1k plus antagonism. If it's easy to reduce I'd love to know the how..

[cråck]

Originally posted by cupoe:

Few reasons:
1. My country have become too rich that I don't even know what is the point of more money
2. or become too big and due to proximity, conquering more lands doesn't feel beneficial
3. or become too powerful that there is no challenge

Discuss?

these 3 points are related and contredict themselves
if you are rich and powerfull enough you can afford hold territories that will involve more cost for you, witch at some point can become a challenge

Eu4 usually ends around global trade where you chose to eighter Wc, end accomplish your goals or go another run
Eu5 is kinda same at some point you have to chose eighter wc, end accomplish your goals or go an other run

I'm a map painter, i think if you don't map paint in Europa you're missing something, and clearly the map can not be fully paint by 1500ish

[anchovius]

Paradox hasn't actually tested anything past mid 1500s, its too much work.

[Golem]

Originally posted by anchovius:

Paradox hasn't actually tested anything past mid 1500s, its too much work.

And this is a problem for literally all dev companies, they just don't care anymore.

[Doc]

My biggest complaint is that the economy, income, markets, and similar things seem to be random values magically generated every month.
I hoped for a strategy game, not a global market simulator. The economy is far too complicated, and its importance is far too great compared to political and military aspects.
(And you have to learn it from scratch at every patch)

[Noname]

And all Paradox games suffer the same thing. When players start rolling over everything, the game starts to be boring. But there is no easy fix for that.

There are ways to make the gold-making machine slow down in a late game. For example, a historical thing called "Great Bullion Famine". It did hit Europe in 15th century and was a destabilizing factor for many European economies at that time and led to 16th century event called the "Price Revolution" that also destabilized European economies.

Wars also should damage industry buildings and populations more. Looting and deaths of peasants were things that always led to negative situations in affected countries. And peasants didn't die only when conscripted, because famine followed when there were not enough young men to tend fields, leading to even more dead people. Plus there was looting and brutal foraging for food by exploiting local populations, leading to more dead people.

For example, PLC never truly recovered from the devastating Swedish Deluge in 17th century. They lost like 30-40% of the total population in span of few years, and a lot of industry and a lot of towns and cities ended totally devastated. Leading to its demise a century later (with other factors included). The same goes for religious wars in Germany. A lot of people died (15-40% of total HRE population died, mostly civilians), and a lot of industry was lost.

To be honest, I don't believe that Paradox can pull all of those things out and make them into a cohesive, good working product, without destroying other mechanics. Time will tell.

About proximity: I think that Paradox needs to make some rework of how vassals function or add the ability to create some kind of internal subdivisions in your country with dukes, princes, and governors managing territories inside the country. Like Ottoman Eyalets or Polish Lithuanian commonwealth voivodeships. People in charge of those should gather wealth and have ambitions, and in the process they should rebel and destabilize your country. Further from the core, those people rule; the more power they have and more they act aginst you, if not controled properly.

[KroganCharr]

Originally posted by Noname:

There are ways to make the gold-making machine slow down in a late game.

I don't think mechanics that slow down and puniish the player further than they already do would be well received.

Originally posted by Noname:

About proximity: I think that Paradox needs to make some rework of how vassals function or add the ability to create some kind of internal subdivisions in your country with dukes, princes, and governors managing territories inside the country. Like Ottoman Eyalets or Polish Lithuanian commonwealth voivodeships. People in charge of those should gather wealth and have ambitions, and in the process they should rebel and destabilize your country. Further from the core, those people rule; the more power they have and more they act aginst you, if not controled properly.

This is a solid concept in principle, but that's already how Crusader Kings works. Europa Universalis covers a time period where there was much consolidation of power into the central government, until we get to absolutism. Grounding the game in a feudalism type set of mechanics would be pretty backwards in my opinion.

[tonypa]

Originally posted by KroganCharr:

Europa Universalis covers a time period where there was much consolidation of power into the central government, until we get to absolutism. Grounding the game in a feudalism type set of mechanics would be pretty backwards in my opinion.

EU5 covers so many different time periods. Even in France feudalism was not fully abolished until French Revolution. And that was most advanced country, in other parts of Europe feudalism continued well beyond EU5 timeline.

if you consider all the playable nations in EU5 in 1300-1800, consolidation of power into the central government is probably not the words describing the majority. If anything, the speed of EU5 pushing every country into modernization is way too fast.

[xcairnsx5]

Yeah the economy scaling is a huge issue. The games over before you even get to colonise ect, just infinite money, Iv been changing settings, lowering player tax income, doubling my unit maintenance ect hopefully this slows it down and makes it more difficult/fun

[tonypa]

I am fairly sure there was a scaling modifier that made everything cost more by % as time passed. Did they remove it?

[xcairnsx5]

Originally posted by tonypa:

I am fairly sure there was a scaling modifier that made everything cost more by % as time passed. Did they remove it?

nah it's still there but by the time you reach the higher ages it doesn't matter lol

[truehunter]

I absolutely don't understand this type of criticism. The 1600s are 300+ years into the game. It is over half way through the total duration the game covers. Every paradox game (every 4X game!) snowballs by the second half. Literally every one. It is sort of the point of the game. If you don't enjoy the power fantasy and ability to alter history then you can start a new game. Or come up with something insane to do (in EU4 whenever my SE Asia or East Asia campaign got stale, I started colonizing the new world and convert everyone to hinduism or buddhism because why not?).

If any nation in 1337 had a god like entity controlling it that had the knowledge and power the player has to act by fiat, that nation would also be rolling by the 1600s!

It seems that you are upset that you are too good at these games. That's what mods are for!

[xcairnsx5]

Originally posted by truehunter:

I absolutely don't understand this type of criticism. The 1600s are 300+ years into the game. It is over half way through the total duration the game covers. Every paradox game (every 4X game!) snowballs by the second half. Literally every one. It is sort of the point of the game. If you don't enjoy the power fantasy and ability to alter history then you can start a new game. Or come up with something insane to do (in EU4 whenever my SE Asia or East Asia campaign got stale, I started colonizing the new world and convert everyone to hinduism or buddhism because why not?).

If any nation in 1337 had a god like entity controlling it that had the knowledge and power the player has to act by fiat, that nation would also be rolling by the 1600s!

It seems that you are upset that you are too good at these games. That's what mods are for!

it's not by the 1600's tho. Your eco can scale crazy in 100 years, same with the a.i on very hard, like 10x starting eco base in 100 years (unless you play a OPM). Same problem Eu4 had.
I'm editing files to nerf a lot of things mostly for the player, I'll see how that goes....