R5: I had a post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EU5/comments/1v0nsj9/playing_wide_meaningful_in_this_patch/

I had several issues:

-Mamlukls were too strong.

-I had a mixed army comp. Heavy cav stack was suggested.

-My economy was concentrated around high control areas and I didnt spam cities.

-Some of my societal values were going down.

-creating more markets was suggested

So I restarted the campaign and changed/tested a few things:

1. A full stack of light cav is enough. Extended timars buff your light cav by 20%. So they are extremally potent and can kill anything. I dont even need Age 3 light cavs. Age 2 ones are doing the job just fine. I recommend you take the Mamluks as an ally early game, dragged them around in your wars and around the early 1400s the alliance will break because you and the Mamluks will become a hegemon, after which you can start declaring wars. The first war is the most difficult. Once you got that one, just take as much land as possible from lower Egypt.
2. I dont know why people suggest spamming cities and town, but it is 100% not the end of all means. I have considerable amount of more land directly under me and my wealth/tax base is still lower. It is perfectly fine investing your money in early game into your high control areas. Maybe as a min-maxing strategy it might be worse (beats me how), but for your average joe, it is completly fine. I may add that I didnt utilize my land as much as the other run yet, because I am spamming infrastructure buildings.

Eitherway, My economy, my army and my pop size is about the same.

1. My naval societal value was likely bugged/corrupted. I didnt even need any events/parliament to push my naval value far beyond 50, but jurisprudence 100% does go down, even when you push it. My guess is that it is somehow related to waging war with certain religions.

2. I honestly dont see why 1 big market as oppose to several smaller markets should be that big of a deal. I dont really see the benefit. Granted I likely have far less markets in this run, but you have to compensate building high control areas up.

EDIT:

Guys we are approaching the realm of non-existence with some comments. If you put a box on the comment section, we have Schrödingers urbanization. There are people advocating for lots of urbanization

"It's efficient to do 50% urbanization as a minimum" -> which is what I did in this run and that person says I should have urbanized even more for bailiffs (I dont even have that many worthwhile RGOs).

And

"towns and cities are tools to scale better, you can only do so much with rural settlements, if you have money and your cities are starting to become full, deploy new ones to have more promoted pops," -> People advocating for the reverse, which I was doing in my previous run.

I am not here asking for the best min-maxing guide out there. The purpose of this post was to share the results. Now the scaling itself is a different topic, but clearly the subject is more nuanced than "just make cities" or "just create demand".

My initial argument was that you should be radiating out of your high control, profitable areas and not dip into low control areas to create demand. The main take-away (at least for me) in the comment section is:

-Stick to radiating out economically.

- Push societal values as early as possible

-Set estates early (my new plan is to give rights at the begining and slowly taking them away starting from the 1400s onwards.

- And a more nuanced economic plan for scaling. How that is suppose to look like, I did not figure out, as there are contradicting suggestions with remarks that add no value or depth (telling me to just create demand, when I was doing so anyways, is not helping out. Clearly there is a priority with things).

Millions of your pops going abroad for what benefit?

RGOs and infrastructure will all be depleted in the motherlands.

Other than adjacent land , how is colonialism beneficial?

Isn’t the better meta to conquer

Started by consolidating historical Austrian borders then later explained and conquered all of Hungary and Venice after I conquered Bohemia (which got destroyed by Hussite wars) and now I am looking to expand into Poland and Silesia and annex all of north Italy

I have extensive hours on the EU and Vicky series. Having tried to play multiple things in EU5, I feel like the game is not as fun to play as EU4 because it lacks vision.

The best example of this is the combined forces multiplier. That is a patch-up to (try to (cav OP)) force the player to maintain a balanced army. It does not try to simulate the battle that arises with units of different kinds, which would be interesting. Nevertheless, there is a simulation underneath. This shows that there is not really an idea behind what the game wants the battles to be like. EU4 was simpler, but it was more fun and a better simulation (before player mod-stacks). It knew the level of abstraction it wanted to deliver and did it well. EU5 tries to be more detailed, but fails.

Playing a trade republic in EU4 is fun. Trade steering is completely nonsense (especially with mod-stacking, it gets ridiculous). But it does simulate the fact that goods from faraway lands are exotic and fetch a good premium. In EU5, there is a great deal of simulation. But nothing beyond trade range really has an impact. There is no point in having all those islands in the Aegean Sea as Venice. That makes playing as Venice not fun. There is no reason to fight over small islands because the simulation does not give a good reason to. There is no trade power and steering. Just spam trade offices on foreign lands. Again, the simulation goes deeper and more detailed than EU4, but does not reach the sweet spot of abstraction where everything important on that level of depth gets covered.

Pottery should be demanded in masses by all pops but now it is so meaningless you almost want to destroy the potteries that were there from the start of the game. Potteries make no sense as they are basically what accounts for a dude with tools in his garage production. In Vicky 2 there were artisans. Building a pottery should cost almost nothing and take almost no time. So, it makes no sense as a building. Even rural areas should have market towns with artisans. Villages needed towns. Villages being built by the government is just weird, because the game already has peasants producing surplus food. Now villages take peasants away from the very job that the villages do. It is just weird and should not be like that. The game tries to do something, while it would be better not to do anything.

The list goes on. Vicky 3 suffers from similar things. Vicky 3 still suffers from warfare not being fun. The irony of higher level abstraction of the warfare is that it made it more complicated. They have improved it, but it is still not fun. Trade sucked until they made world markets. But, the world market is so efficient that there is no need for diversification and conflict over goods is non-existent. But, the game became a lot more fun, and less resource intensive. Paradox has the capability to solve these problems, but they are radical changes to the game.

However, combined arms bonus is not it, and shows short-term patching being the mode EU5 operates. I do not know what is behind this: trying to get a playable game as fast as possible, listening to feedback of the community instead of following the original idea, but it is obvious that there is a lot to do, and something to give up for the game to reach a more fun state. In-depth simulation is not fun, nor even realistic if it fails to cover all relevant mechanisms of that level of abstraction. And sometimes reality is just not fun. I understand that trade republics have a cap on how much wealth they can have as their profit comes from the logistics and is therefore limited by the wealth creation of their surroundings. Trade-steering will not create wealth out of nothingness. But, it is fun if it does, as that rewards a game very different from other nations.

Really looking forward for some major overhauls to see EU5 reach at least as fun of state as Vicky 3. For now, there is not really a reason to play past few ages, and replayability is poor, so I will only play a run every few month. The game just does not work as a satisfying simulator as Vicky 3, or a fun gamey experience as EU4.

I've achieved the ends listed for the absolutist path: Do 20 years need to pass, or is the game bugging out? It's been about seven months in game since I achieved the end requirements.

Straight to the issue. Why does the general leading a stack of 46 levies return home when he is starved in enemy territory and then wiped by an enemy stack? Why are characters never killed in combat? I've tried to kill off my ruler or characters I don't want and every time they come back alive.

Example: In my last Korean campaign I send the same Mongolian general with 5 different stacks of 10-50 levies on Satsunan island to die and he came back, I even moved the ships away so he can't return.

As the title states: How is everyone feeling about EU5 now?

I'm a long time EUIV player, EUIII before that, and really enjoyed both games with EUIV being the best for me. I bought EU5 figuring it would be similar, but also more granular. I liked that. It has taken me awhile to get enough funds to upgrade my PC, but now that I have a really good one, I've asked some friends and they said it got repetitive. EUIV had that issue at points too. Do you all feel it's repetitive now?

I converted to Hellenism with Byz via an event.
Unfortualtly it would not let me add a religious aspect.
I also can't seem to find to select an oman. I only can click on "Pilgramage"
1.3 no mods, no dlc's, ironman

Estoy jugando como castilla en la 1.3 y han empezadoclas guerras italianas. Heredé Napoles y tengo 120/200 provincias, ¿cómo conquisto las 80 restantes sin que el antagonismo crezca y tenga coaliciones contra toda europa?

¿Cuánto tiempo hay para ganar las guerras? ¿Son los buff por ganar tan buenos como parece?

Do not hesitate to take loans.

Also why do they spam it without cooldown...

Edit: And apparently it stacks because I just declined and now have -200 opinion from them...

We are generally talking about very large areas for these RGOs, if we build a city that houses twenty thousand individuals its not realistically going to output how many wheat fields it can support. Yo can drive around Europe today and see that even modern towns themselves don’t seriously impact the amount of arable land.

If anything it makes more sense for a province outputting a metric buttton of wheat or iron to have a town/city to handle all that output

I enjoyed the ottomans. Haven’t played in a bit. Are the Byzantines fun? Or are they a bit bland?

Today this morning I watched Ludi's video on the 1.3 survey and watched him go off on 5 min bitching fest about multiplayer balance, he had the entirely wrong idea (we are saying the same thing ludi, more on that in a bit) and I do not outright think i am the person he was calling out (I hope it was because this gives me a chance to spell it out for you) I do not know how many people are saying the game being balance for multiplayer is ruining the single player game there are but I know I'm more vocal than some.

Anyway I want to address at least what I'm saying and maybe if you see this ludi, you can see this and realize we are asking for the same exact thing.

When I see one of the pain points saying "multiplayer balancing" what I hope Paradox is saying is balancing the game around multiplayer (where they nerf a mechanic to being unusable) is an issue because it is.

Now please listen VERY CAREFULLY!

We want paradox to balance the game around SINGLE PLAYER so yes id like it so that you don't need cavalry armies up until age IV and they fix infantry etc.

We want the exact same thing, instead ludi you go on and get triggered because you have the wrong idea about at least what I am saying, it's when they nerf mechanics to the point of said mechanic becoming not usable that they're using multiplayer games (which the dev's themselves HAVE ADMITTED, please see my other post where I source all of that information) for testing.

Also I play multiplayer so trying to get that ridiculous jab in about how it's a "skill issue" stop trying to shift the conversation away from what we are trying to talk about, you don't know what else I do like play multiplayer as well, who gives a flying fruit cup if you are a better or worse player, NOT THE POINT.

We want the same thing and it was so sad to see you go on and on crying like you did, maybe if I'm that one guy on the forms, talk to me instead, I am actually really reasonable. I care about this game as much as you do and I too want to see this game succeed. So let me reiterate for everyone what I mean..

MULTIPLAYER BALANCINGS= nerfing mechanics to the point they are unuseable, and that's because they test features meant for single player in a multiplayer setting.

All the examples you gave for what "multiplayer players want" based on single player balancing, I want too because it would be based on single player testing, WE WANT THE SAME THINGS my guy.

So ludi you clearly didn't understand what I was saying, maybe other people are saying otherwise and the telephone game is rearing it's head so it gets skewed, if that's the case then I hope this clarifies, I am not trying to be an A hole here, it just annoys me when I see YouTubers get butthurt because they don't realize we are on the same page.

I don't think I am the "guy" he was talking about but this is my response to his video regardless, and again would love to chat one on one if you actually want to fix EU5.

Cheers.

I noticed that unlike EUIV, EUV did not have a mod that allowed you to Tag switch on Ruler Death, so I made a mod for it. Try it out if you think you will enjoy it.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3717454943

Mod Description:

The day after your ruler dies you will be given the option to change nations. Choose to continue as:

- The nation with the world’s youngest ruler
- A random independent nation
- The youngest ruler controlling at least 15 locations
- The youngest ruler in Europe.
- Continue as your current nation.

Turn every succession into a fresh challenge and experience the world from a new perspective.

My dumb brain fails to comprehend it. Do I just build shit to make alot of shit?

Even now, why is Madrid not sending a diplomat to Barcelona and culture convert everyone in a couple of decades? /s

No but seriously, the concept of culture conversion feels so stupid once you think about it for more than ten seconds, especially mass culture conversions before the advent of mass media.

Am I the only one who thinks pure culture conversion should be next to nonexistent, and the only real ways it should be done, should be genocide, mass expulsion and mass resettlement? Cultural blending should also be possible, where two cultures can create a new culture, a blend of the two, but I understand that's really hard to do in a game.

Still, the fact that you can pacifically force everyone in a region to abandon their customs and adopt new customs in the span of a few decades is absolute fantasy. Apply it to any region in modern times where there are cultural tensions, and you'll understand how impossible it would have been irl.

Recently started a Norway game but I'm struggling to grow faster than Sweden is. I've gotta be missing something obvious since Norway is marked as a beginner country.

Back in 1.0 i played a Norway game and got lucky enough that a Swedish civil war erupted and lasted long enough for me to claim seniority and lock myself in as the senior partner, but I'm not sure if that'll happen again.

Any advice on how to scale my economic base fast enough to overtake Sweden?

UPDATE: Got to play a little during my lunch break. Allied Denmark (they rivaled Sweden), used the Parliament Larger Levies request and went in with 11k levies (6k of mine and 5k Danes) vs 7k (4k Swedes and 3k Scania..ns?) and pretty handily won the war. Enforced Seniority and took some of their higher value provinces to release into a vassal. Y'boy is securely the Senior Partner in the Norwegian Union. Upgraded a rural settlement to a town in my silver mine province to start pumpin out Jewelry

Thank you all so much for the advice !

I’m playing as Burgundy and have run into a game-breaking issue where France and England are abusing the fact that they can declare on my junior partner and prevent me from using allies. I’ve joined the HRE(Bohemia is emperor) and have the Papal States and Austria as allies, but my junior partner in Artois isn’t in the empire and has no allies, so France and England just repeatedly attack them so I’m alone.

It’s very frustrating given I have senior partner status, so the war should be considered against me and I should have support from alliances and the emperor. The AI is just cheesing the fact that my junior partner can’t have alliances to force me into defensive wars by myself. Unfortunately I’ve had to white peace France using console since the run would’ve been severely damaged, and in all fairness they would capitulate if Austria, Bohemia, and the Papal States were also involved. Just sucks because it ruins the authenticity of it.

Hi Guys I'm Jadamsan, I make EU5 guides and I'd love to help you all out here directly. Chuck me any one liner questions that I can answer directly :)

Feel free to ask deep stuff too, but I might ping you a vid!

Vassals/fiefdoms suck at converting/integrating land for you thanks to the reduced cabinet effectiveness and slots, 10 year enforce culture cooldown, 0.5 annexation base etc. Fortunately, this is where PUs come in. PUs don’t have any nerfs to their cabinet so they integrate and convert way faster and have a base annexation speed of 1 if you have the final unification law. You can culture convert them and they won’t throw a fit like subjects and their liberty desire meter. Best of all, if you use the transfer occupation button, you can let your PU member tank the antagonism hit for you instead of you getting coalitioned for vassalising 3 OLM in the HRE.

Putting aside PUs occasional suicidal tendencies of diving into stupid wars that make no sense, they seem to be great if you can afford the diplo cap or am I missing something?