The other smoking gun in the dev diary for EU5 is that the icon used for the classes pie chart shows very specifically 16th/17th century fashion such as the “ruff” collar the man wears.
One interesting detail is that the pop types correspond to the EUIV estates; burghers, clerics, nobles, and peasants. So we may see the effects of land ownership of estates moved to that system.
Didn't expect a Vic style pop system, but considering that they are narrowing it down to 5 professions and no further building categories, plus only 2 attributes (literacy & happiness), I think this will be quite performant. But important to note the weaknesses, in case they decide to add onto it in the future.
They are making the pop system better in Vic3, every update is better,, so when EU5 lauchs, he will have the better pop system than Vic3, and Vic 3 too
@@BlueHawkPictures17True, I forgot Imperator pop is basically just EU4 development which moves around; but the class structure and happiness are very similar to Imperator
I feel like development in a game like Europa, is better implemented as buildings like in EU4 but have more and cheaper buildings like roads and maybe huts to live in and stuff in addition to the bigger important buildings like markets and workshops and barracks and later on, manufactories. Then having to build more roads and houses in larger town/city centers while the really rural areas barely need more than 1 or 2 roads, that way you don't need to constantly build too much through the campaign but just kinda a bit of development and maintenance to keep up with
I think the reason Vic 2 was mentioned is because Johan worked on the game, I'm not sure if he worked on Vic 3. He also worked on Imperator Rome, which is why I keep drawing similarities to that game in terms of pops, and that game runs fine (from memory)
If the game is based on pops instead of mana, and doesn't have the massive scaling that industrialization has, then making the game fun for an extra 100 years could be perfectly reasonable.
Its definitely before 1347 but after 1333. In the pop map of India, Delhi sultanate still controls the Deccan (so pre Bahamani rebellion). But it does not control the south east coast (so post or during the Nayak rebellion against Tughlaq). That is assuming the pop screenshot posted is the starting date map.
I don’t think we will have two games, for me it makes sense to build a nation till the revolution, the mecanics like the revolution are crucial for the late game
Johan said that he coded pops of vicky 2 and imperator, so if u could run those games, eu5 shouldn't be a problem, they won't be using vicky 3 systems.
There’s also a TON of Muslims, which would likely have been much more of a minority in the normal EU4 start date. I’m a bit proponent of the 1350s, when the Reconquista wasn’t basically finished
vic3 pop function with other codes, he doesnt worked in vic3, but his worked in vic2, this is from where the pop system is coming, a more simplified form of it of course.
1337 (start of the black plague,100 years war, ottoman becoming a powerful, Japan Tokugawa shogunate starting the same year) - 1648 (end of the 30 years war and the reformation in general) And then a second game : 1648 - 1836 Would be luvly!
I doubt it'll start before the Black Death. They just added a proper Black Death to CK3, and starting with a big catastrophe would probably make it less interesting/fun for many players. Starting a decade or two after the Black Death? That would also give us a political situation that is far more stabile in most of Europe than jumping right into half the continent dying.
I don't think there will be 2 games. Paradox won't split EU4 into 2, that might make the consumer think less of them individiually compared to them just normally together.
The pop list is likely from the starting situation of Aragon. Despite the end of Reconquista in 1492 which was the destruction of the last Muslim state in Iberia, there were Muslim and some Jewish people who continued living in Iberia up until 17th century and one particular point of concentration was Catalonia and especially Valencia and, to slightly lesser extent, Barcelona, where there were quite a lot of Muslim peasants and burghers up until early 17th century.
The fact that they showed Americas in the world view kind of means that it's going to be EU 5 instead of between CK and EU timelines. But as you said, there might be 2 games coming out. But again, why should they publish 2 games at once that will cannibalise each other's playerbase.
I could really dig the reduction in timespan for CK and EU. Both games are so long that they struggle to model historical events at the end of their game cycles. I know March of the eagles is a meme, but man, does EU4 not capture what makes the 1700s and early 1800s so interesting.
well CK3 is already almost 600 years long if you choose the early start date so I think it'll only be one game. Although I'm not opposed to a game ending in the 1600s and another one starting in the 1600s since i can't remember the last time I played EU4 past the 1600s anyway.
I think that is goona be a very long game, with a lot of mechanic, like the eras in EU4, but change more the game in every Era, ppl dont play the end game in EU4, because the became a walking paiting simulator, the IA need to be more develope and more consist like a player do, in every paradox game, the player do so much better than a IA, thats the end game is not fun and a very tedious
One of the religions in the dev diary was Lutheran - that puts a really specific date range since that religion didn't exist before 1507 and faded from political prominence by the time of Vicky.
I don't think you are right about 2 games for the time period. You have some logical arguments, but I think you are wrong for a number of reasons: 1.) Fashion used by models on some icons is 17th-18th century. 2.) The start date can be 1450 and not 1350. The 1350 one came from calculations based on contemporary China population. But the population of China in 1450 dipped and fell to the same number it was in 1350 after a civil war. 3.) Colonization. It's not going to be fun to colonize and then not get any returns by the time the game ends. Colonization would only start paying for itself after about 100 years, which would leave just a few decades at most for the majority of the nations to profit from it. It wouldn't feel good. 4.) Finally, the global trade lanes would make more sense for a game centered on the era of European imperialism, rather than an era of Europe's emerging pre-eminence at home.
No, the better evidence for mid 14th century came from political borders in India. Delhi Sultanate looks to be at its height under the Tughlaq dynasty. No state controlled both the Ganges and Deccan like that until the height of the Mughals centuries later.
They really do need to split time of EU4 into two. ~1350 to ~1600 and ~1600 to 1836 (Vic3 time) High middle ages warfare has nothing to do with line warfare of late 1600s and just as medieval agrarian economy has nothing to do with capitalist one, but they somehow put it all together in their former games which still plays good, but nonsensical in relation to real history and flavor of these specific eras.
I don't mind if the game have a 1350 start, as long as it also have later start dates that are equally supported. my ideas for start dates: 1492: the discovery of America, and the Protestant reformation around the corner. ca. 1600: the height of the 80 years war, second wave of colonialism, and the 30 years war looming.
Them bringing the endate foreward I do think likely. But I don't think 1600's, I think it's more likely to be just after the napoleonic wars, just before industrialization and the agricultural revolution that changes the nature of the economy and pop growth.
He doenst talked about vic3 because Johan worked in vic2 not vic3 too, and his make the pop system that will get into eu5, the vic3 pop system was made by other people with other codes etcs
I hope they take a lot of inspiration from Victoria 3. Vicky 3 did soooo many things right. The map, the way it feels, the charts, it’s so authentic and pleasing. Please keep the passion in that
About game length. Long game's con would be that almost no one would play the last part of the game since most of tge EU players rn don't reach halfway through the timeline i think Cons of 2 shorter ganes would be harder world conquests :c
I think it'd be a potentially interesting and good idea to have a whole game dedicated to new world colonization, absolutism, and revolutions since their integration in EU has always been rocky. There's so much different between the way nations worked in 1450 and 1650 that a lot of the systems don't make sense for one era or the other.
@@viniciusteixeiramelo8687 Yeah just have it be a menu option or something. Having the generals preform based on their skill level would be awesome too. In the beginning of your empire when your military is weak you will probably micro a lot, but as you set up military academies and gain military tradition your generals are capable of not being terrible etc.
The devs actually confirmed in the first tinto talks that the warfare WILL be classic paradox Map units that move in the map's locations. No abstractions. Rest your weary heads, the danger is over
The other smoking gun in the dev diary for EU5 is that the icon used for the classes pie chart shows very specifically 16th/17th century fashion such as the “ruff” collar the man wears.
Good call!
Love how the last picture seems to be about Byzantium
Good catch!
One interesting detail is that the pop types correspond to the EUIV estates; burghers, clerics, nobles, and peasants. So we may see the effects of land ownership of estates moved to that system.
Didn't expect a Vic style pop system, but considering that they are narrowing it down to 5 professions and no further building categories, plus only 2 attributes (literacy & happiness), I think this will be quite performant. But important to note the weaknesses, in case they decide to add onto it in the future.
They are making the pop system better in Vic3, every update is better,, so when EU5 lauchs, he will have the better pop system than Vic3, and Vic 3 too
Sounds closer to Imperator than Victoria if that's the case, though the underlying mechanics are clearly based on V3
I was really hoping for Imperator style pops.
@@rabidfurify imperator is very different, they use discrete pops likenin stellaris. This *is* Victoria's pop system, just simplified.
@@BlueHawkPictures17True, I forgot Imperator pop is basically just EU4 development which moves around; but the class structure and happiness are very similar to Imperator
With an EU5 pop system, the potential for an EU-VIC3 converter is real.
there are eu-vic3 converters, eu4 has a hidden pop stat in the background so when you convert it knows what population to give to each province
@@Xela2501eu4 has no such stat, the converter uses development to estimate population
True!
personally i would love to see a super long game. also im so glad they are going with pops i feel like development is just too abstract.
I feel like development in a game like Europa, is better implemented as buildings like in EU4 but have more and cheaper buildings like roads and maybe huts to live in and stuff in addition to the bigger important buildings like markets and workshops and barracks and later on, manufactories. Then having to build more roads and houses in larger town/city centers while the really rural areas barely need more than 1 or 2 roads, that way you don't need to constantly build too much through the campaign but just kinda a bit of development and maintenance to keep up with
Imperator 2 CONFIRMED!!!
Imperator 2: Carthage's Revenge
I think the reason Vic 2 was mentioned is because Johan worked on the game, I'm not sure if he worked on Vic 3.
He also worked on Imperator Rome, which is why I keep drawing similarities to that game in terms of pops, and that game runs fine (from memory)
If the game is based on pops instead of mana, and doesn't have the massive scaling that industrialization has, then making the game fun for an extra 100 years could be perfectly reasonable.
Imagine they didn't do EU5 but March of Eagles 2
It would be unimaginably based
The migration system might be the same Imperator's system which doesn't impact performance at all.
Its definitely before 1347 but after 1333. In the pop map of India, Delhi sultanate still controls the Deccan (so pre Bahamani rebellion). But it does not control the south east coast (so post or during the Nayak rebellion against Tughlaq). That is assuming the pop screenshot posted is the starting date map.
Finally. More screentime for Hundred Years War
12:05 My guess is that it's because Vic 2 was developed by Johan while he had nothing to do with Vic 3 so he feels more comfortable talking about 2.
That makes a lot of sense
I don’t think we will have two games, for me it makes sense to build a nation till the revolution, the mecanics like the revolution are crucial for the late game
I hope for everyone to have a computer with a good cpu.
Hope my steam deck can handle it
With paradox's bugs we will all have bad cpus 🤣
I have Rx 7900XT + Ryzen 5800x3D
Johan said that he coded pops of vicky 2 and imperator, so if u could run those games, eu5 shouldn't be a problem, they won't be using vicky 3 systems.
🙏@@MrSake555
1356 is when meiou and taxes starts.
If they were to split it in two, I would do 1356 to 1648 and 1648 to 1836.
Feel free to switch out 1648 for 1656.
1648 seems like a really good start date. but mayb eit should start 1618 or a little earlier. the 30 years war could bring an absolute ton of content
14:53 in Sweden would be 13:53 GMT, right? 1353 is a very plausible start date given the evidence
Look at the second screenshot. Spehardic jews in catalonia, they were expelled in 1492, which means starting date is before 1492.
There’s also a TON of Muslims, which would likely have been much more of a minority in the normal EU4 start date. I’m a bit proponent of the 1350s, when the Reconquista wasn’t basically finished
@@weabootrash5891 yes, in 3rd tinto talks you can see byzantium around that time
There is literally "Luther" mentioned as a religion, I think that makes it clear that it's EU5 :)
Good catch!
feels a lot like MEIOU & Taxes 3.0, very excited to see where paradox goes with this
The decades of experience didn't help with vic3 performance so I remain skeptical
I do to a little bit, esp if redistributing pops is super meta, but not something the ai does too much
They won't be using vicky3 system, if u can run imperator or vic2 u should be good, cuz that is the code they will be using
But the 5 pop types definitely will. You think you can fuck up the performance of a game with just 5 pop types, when vic 3 has 15 or so?
Vic 3 has way fewer provinces though I think@@ellidominusser1138
vic3 pop function with other codes, he doesnt worked in vic3, but his worked in vic2, this is from where the pop system is coming, a more simplified form of it of course.
1337 (start of the black plague,100 years war, ottoman becoming a powerful, Japan Tokugawa shogunate starting the same year) - 1648 (end of the 30 years war and the reformation in general)
And then a second game :
1648 - 1836
Would be luvly!
I doubt it'll start before the Black Death. They just added a proper Black Death to CK3, and starting with a big catastrophe would probably make it less interesting/fun for many players. Starting a decade or two after the Black Death? That would also give us a political situation that is far more stabile in most of Europe than jumping right into half the continent dying.
I don't think there will be 2 games. Paradox won't split EU4 into 2, that might make the consumer think less of them individiually compared to them just normally together.
kinda sad that this is not something at 0 HE (human era), but EU5 is also great
What is a he
@@geoDB. 12000 years ago methinks
It's possible it's just way too ambitions on the engine they use
7:00
My guy tensed up. Life went through his eyes
9:00 this literacy/revolution mechanic makes me think that the game will continue go up to the 1800s
The pop list is likely from the starting situation of Aragon. Despite the end of Reconquista in 1492 which was the destruction of the last Muslim state in Iberia, there were Muslim and some Jewish people who continued living in Iberia up until 17th century and one particular point of concentration was Catalonia and especially Valencia and, to slightly lesser extent, Barcelona, where there were quite a lot of Muslim peasants and burghers up until early 17th century.
The fact that they showed Americas in the world view kind of means that it's going to be EU 5 instead of between CK and EU timelines. But as you said, there might be 2 games coming out. But again, why should they publish 2 games at once that will cannibalise each other's playerbase.
No I'm not suggesting a simul, but they might make an Eu5 w/ a 1600s end date, and then 2-3 years later a 1600-1800 game
Commenting for the algorithm
Based
If the perfomance is so good, i would love it to be one big game!
I could really dig the reduction in timespan for CK and EU. Both games are so long that they struggle to model historical events at the end of their game cycles. I know March of the eagles is a meme, but man, does EU4 not capture what makes the 1700s and early 1800s so interesting.
March of the eagles 2 confirmed?????????????
FREE MY BOY MOTE
What makes the 1700s and early 1800s interesting to you?
well CK3 is already almost 600 years long if you choose the early start date so I think it'll only be one game. Although I'm not opposed to a game ending in the 1600s and another one starting in the 1600s since i can't remember the last time I played EU4 past the 1600s anyway.
also pop census in diary belongs to byzantium
I think that is goona be a very long game, with a lot of mechanic, like the eras in EU4, but change more the game in every Era, ppl dont play the end game in EU4, because the became a walking paiting simulator, the IA need to be more develope and more consist like a player do, in every paradox game, the player do so much better than a IA, thats the end game is not fun and a very tedious
I loved eras from Eu4
One of the religions in the dev diary was Lutheran - that puts a really specific date range since that religion didn't exist before 1507 and faded from political prominence by the time of Vicky.
"Faded from political prominence"
German Empire was literally Lutheran.
MARCH OF EAGLES 2 CONFIRMED !!!!!!!🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
I don't think you are right about 2 games for the time period. You have some logical arguments, but I think you are wrong for a number of reasons:
1.) Fashion used by models on some icons is 17th-18th century.
2.) The start date can be 1450 and not 1350. The 1350 one came from calculations based on contemporary China population. But the population of China in 1450 dipped and fell to the same number it was in 1350 after a civil war.
3.) Colonization. It's not going to be fun to colonize and then not get any returns by the time the game ends. Colonization would only start paying for itself after about 100 years, which would leave just a few decades at most for the majority of the nations to profit from it. It wouldn't feel good.
4.) Finally, the global trade lanes would make more sense for a game centered on the era of European imperialism, rather than an era of Europe's emerging pre-eminence at home.
No, the better evidence for mid 14th century came from political borders in India. Delhi Sultanate looks to be at its height under the Tughlaq dynasty. No state controlled both the Ganges and Deccan like that until the height of the Mughals centuries later.
They really do need to split time of EU4 into two.
~1350 to ~1600 and ~1600 to 1836 (Vic3 time)
High middle ages warfare has nothing to do with line warfare of late 1600s and just as medieval agrarian economy has nothing to do with capitalist one, but they somehow put it all together in their former games which still plays good, but nonsensical in relation to real history and flavor of these specific eras.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but it's increasingly looking like a 500 year game
I don't mind if the game have a 1350 start, as long as it also have later start dates that are equally supported.
my ideas for start dates:
1492: the discovery of America, and the Protestant reformation around the corner.
ca. 1600: the height of the 80 years war, second wave of colonialism, and the 30 years war looming.
Them bringing the endate foreward I do think likely. But I don't think 1600's, I think it's more likely to be just after the napoleonic wars, just before industrialization and the agricultural revolution that changes the nature of the economy and pop growth.
He doenst talked about vic3 because Johan worked in vic2 not vic3 too, and his make the pop system that will get into eu5, the vic3 pop system was made by other people with other codes etcs
Ah, that makes sense
YEEESSS!!!!!!
Woooo!
its the map of the population that hints the startdate not the global map
The global map reference at the end was something someone had commented on the previous video mainly re wastelands
I hope they take a lot of inspiration from Victoria 3. Vicky 3 did soooo many things right. The map, the way it feels, the charts, it’s so authentic and pleasing. Please keep the passion in that
Happy Wednesday he says a few minutes before America becomes Thursday
I’ll continue wishing you a happy Wednesday from the cooler coast 🫡😎
About game length. Long game's con would be that almost no one would play the last part of the game since most of tge EU players rn don't reach halfway through the timeline i think
Cons of 2 shorter ganes would be harder world conquests :c
This is eu3 2 2
Great news.
Big nice
I think it'd be a potentially interesting and good idea to have a whole game dedicated to new world colonization, absolutism, and revolutions since their integration in EU has always been rocky. There's so much different between the way nations worked in 1450 and 1650 that a lot of the systems don't make sense for one era or the other.
Vic3 2.0?
I'll give you evidence of EU5... it's the only one they haven't recently done.
It could be EU5, or it could be a whole new game entirely
Eu 5 wont be good for at least 6 years after release.
Look at number of DLC for EU4, no way EU5 has 1/3 of all that content at start.
Yeah it won't have as much content, but the underlying system gets overhauled
We'll see
I think roughly 1/3rd is plausable.
All I want to say, you wouldn't open a new office just to support a 10 year old game.
Man Stellaris 2 looks a bit odd ngl
If eu5 i hope the colonization is interesthing
Doesn’t have the trains guy , skip
Bogomilism religion? That game must be surely be somekind of Byzantium simulator....
Pls no two games... my money couldn´t handle that shit.
They are not making another game. They are simply adding different start dates like in ck3.
poggies
long game with different start dates...
god please automated armies. the game is SOOOOO boring around 1550 when u just start getting unlimited money.
I think it should be optional. Automated but don’t sacrifice any of the actual player control
@@viniciusteixeiramelo8687 imperator rome actually does exactly that, hope they bring that mechanic over.
@@viniciusteixeiramelo8687 Yeah just have it be a menu option or something. Having the generals preform based on their skill level would be awesome too. In the beginning of your empire when your military is weak you will probably micro a lot, but as you set up military academies and gain military tradition your generals are capable of not being terrible etc.
Like Imperator? That would be a good system
@@miguelpadeiro762 Yeah, thats where I got the idea from.
Hopefully they dont change the basic EU warfare.
The war system pre-Vic 3 fits the EU era much better than it ever fit in Vicky 2 so I don't see them changing it.
The devs actually confirmed in the first tinto talks that the warfare WILL be classic paradox
Map units that move in the map's locations. No abstractions.
Rest your weary heads, the danger is over