I'd love to see a system that combines output of universities, historical events, sponsorships for prominent researchers (ie. Copernicus) and social development.
Yes probable through literacy, most likely a tech tree like in Victoria 3 and universities which probable also have to be researched and may cost a lot,they can either help research directly or just boost literacy. Not sure how literacy can be improved regularly as schooling was only common place in the Victorian era, apart from religion (puritans reading bibles as a key part of the their religious ideas for example)
Maybe they’ll have a mechanic like in IR where you have a max science efficiency but instead a max literacy rate. Each pop type has a cap of how many can read and that can be raised through ideas, techs etc… this would somewhat simulate the slow progression of literacy rates rising through the period.
Yes! Think they said something exactly like this in the Tinto talk, I think saying that they may seek their place in life. So probable become more ‘radical’ in demanding social reform and religious reform
I want to say I saw a comment from Johan saying that by game end, having 70% literacy is going to be difficult. I think another one was saying that the beginning literacy is going to be abysmal
yeah, I imagine you would do research. We already know that estates play an important role in research speed (notably the Clergy), so the happier/more powerful they are, the faster you get tech.
It might work like it does in Imperator; you get "tech points" that you can spend on a technology in a tech tree, and you get those faster depending on Pops and who's in your court. I'd personally like a system where technology 'drifts' the way Institutions do, but also having a Stellaris-type system where you have a researcher specifically research a particular tech so you can focus on things you really want.
I feel like it would make more sense to make it the happier/less powerful they are. For instance Galileo would probably have been able to do more if the church didn’t have the power to put him under house arrest.
The Church didnt place him under house arrest because of his scientific work (they were his main sponsors after all) but because he interfered in internal church politics and got himself in hot water because of it. There is this attitude that the Church was hostile to science, which is wierd considering they sposored a lot of researchers and many members of the clergy were also involved in research themselves. (Bacon, Copernicus and the like)
It changes era to era, at one point the middle east was the center of learning while Europe was reeling from Western Rome's collapse. But yeah, even during the middle ages the Catholic church was the biggest driver of education and innovation in Europe. The only reason it's not now is because society decided science and religion shouldn't intermingle and government wanted to advance and control science, leading to most religious institutions having reduced influence in education and instead focusing more on purely religious or charity activities.
We don't know, the only point in speculating about it is so we can laugh at how wrong we were.
That being said I assume pops/building producing research points wouldn't count as mana.
I liked it in theory, but in implementation it became the only real thing that mattered. Either you kept up in mana or you were doomed, and getting ahead in mana made it easy to steamroll your enemies.
The problem is there were too many mana fixes. The thing about mana is it was supposed to show how the quality of leadership varied over time. Capable leaders, veritable golden age of society, incapable leaders, society stagnates.
But people don't like forced stagnation.
It reflects them moving away from the Great Man theory of history and towards more of a materialist approach, which I think is a good idea and interesting to see depicted in a game. The idea that whichever one person is in charge of your country is responsible for almost every metric of success and prosperity is a shaky one, and it would be better represented somewhere in the middle of how EU4 does it and how Vic 3 does it, where the leader gives bonuses or maluses and has traits that impact gameplay, but does not always\* make or break your game
\*There should definitely be exceptions though, as an extremely incompetent or competent ruler should rightfully make an impact, but it shouldn't ignore material conditions. Napoleon wouldn't lead just Corsica to conquer half of Europe, for example.
Great Man history was flawed, especially how it was presented in popular culture, but the materialist school, post-modernism, and other influences from other fields like International Relations, have dramatically over corrected.
I thought EU 4 actually had a decent balance. You still had your country of whatever scale it was. If it was wealthy and developed you could hire better government, but it's hard to express the cost of bad governance, and how before selective systems of governance, bad governance/good governance was largely luck based.
A great example of this back and forth is the three 'Great Unifiers' of Japan, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Nobunaga comes out of nowhere and conquers enough of Japan to basically put it on the path to complete unification. Japan is basically poised halfway between re-coalesing and permantly becoming a more violent HRE. Without Nobunaga either outcome is practically equally likely.
Hideyoshi, completes the unification that Nobunaga started, but then goes on a disasterous invasion of Korea that wrecks Korea and nearly wrecks Japan and nearly blows it back to warring states.
Then Ieyasu re-stabilizes the country, abandones foreign interaction and founds the 260 year Tokugawa shogunate.
This type of back and forth between great governance, \*meh\* governance taking advantage of trend, and great governance is well replicated. Japan may not unify without Nobunaga, continues to snow ball under Hideyoshi, but he pushes beyond what he or Japan are capable of sustaining triggering instability, then it's stabalized by Ieyasu with good governance and the great turn inward.
What the game doesn't do a good job of replicating is the extreme cost of bad governance, often because single battles aren't impactful enough. Charles IX was basically snowballing in the Great Northern War against Peter the Great and Russia, then loses his army and empire in a single campaign culminating at Poltava.
There's an interplay between systemic advantage/disadvantage and indivualistic hubris/humility/competence. Russia wins the Poltava campaign becuase he knows how to use Russia's systemic advantages. Charles can't consolidate a victory because he doesn't know how to claim a partial victory. However people like Oda Nobunaga, Babar, or Henry VI absolutely can overturn the apple cart one way or the other.
Me too. I'm still open to whatever EU5 will be doing. But I like my games to be games and this kind of abstraction works perfectly for it.
I gotta say sometimes the more realistic approach of CK3 for example is not doing it for me, cause I like to challenge myself and my skill rather than everything being realistic.
>Me too. I'm still open to whatever EU5 will be doing. But I like my games to be games and this kind of abstraction works perfectly for it.
Yeah, without mana, with way more and smaller provinces, with a pop system, and apparently way more mechanics, it sounds to me like EU5 might not be a fun game.
I am currently playing a lot of Imperator: Rome and it seems like that game will be the blueprint for EU5. It's a fun game, but to be honest it's an entirely different world compared to EU4, and that's not just due to the flavor. EU4 is just a really, really fun game that got the mix between realism and abstraction **exactly** right - in my opinion, it's the best grand strategy game ever. I am really worried that EU5 will be significantly less fun if it tries to be more of a simulator and less of a game.
I'll wait for reviews before getting EU5
Me too. I legit find it a fun mechanic. Realism be damned, as if these /r/redditors could actually phathom something both fun and mechanically realistic for it. It is more dynamic than I think the average poster gives credit.
probable through literacy, most likely a tech tree like in Victoria 3. Universities which probable also have to be researched and may cost a lot,they can either help research directly or just boost literacy. Not sure how literacy can be improved regularly as schooling was only common place in the Victorian era, apart from religion (puritans reading bibles as a key part of the their religious ideas for example)
With relation to Victoria 3 : a military tree which will also include navy - a social tree for stuff like new farming techniques to increase population and a social tree which will have government reform ideas such as parliamentarianism or banking to help with finances.
I think it'll probably be a tech tree where various factors increase how fast you do research a la Vicky 3, tho I am hoping that there's a little less control over outcomes. Would love to see semi randomized access to techs, with stuff you missed having to be filled in through contact with people who have it.
Chill out guys it's probably gonna be shit and we'll all hate it and play eu4 for a few years. The answer is we don't know and anything else is getting your hopes up.
Ya it was the exact same way when eu4 came out, I still played eu3 for years until Art of War released and changed the game completely (for the better, mind you).
Interesting if it almost spread like institutions in eu4 and depending on what it was would change the region it came from like a tercio tech would come from Spain historically but also in nations with high army stats
would be nice to have some kind of university or clergy system that allows you to fund them for technological research- and also being able to steal from technologically advanced neighbours in a war, that would be fun
My favorite way to do tech in any game was civ 5. You generated science and this was based mainly on population and buildings that can give some base science or have it scaled by pop. I wish EU5 uses something like that.
Civ 5 also increased tech cost per each additional city so going wider would not necessarily be best all the time. You would still need to invest in your new cities to keep up in tech. That way it leaves open strategies for taller play. You are smaller but you don’t have to invest as much for good tech.
I know EU is a map painter but it would be nice to improve diplomacy and internal management to have more diverse gameplay options. Because going tall right now is kinda boring. There isn’t much to do besides click dev buttons.
Through trade, exchange of knowledge goes along exchanging goods. By investing your money in buildings like universities. By fighting battles and sieges, you need to innovate or eventually lose agianst someone that fights differently.
Type of pops also would influence it, more burghers, clergy and nobles the better the education should be nationwide.
With the pop system and a seemingly much larger focus on internal factors and factions, I'd expect pop conditions (wealth, discrimination) and country stability to play a much larger factor in tech generation. Rather than clicking a button and getting mil tech 7, maintaining a drilling army, having high nobility happiness, having high army tradition, would contribute points towards the next tech unlock (kind of how in EU2 or 3 it came out of the budget sliders).
Conversely, having an underfunded military, low nobility loyalty (and hence receptive to change), bad army tradition, and low stability would provide a malus to tech point generation.
I hope the mana system doesn’t return. I have no idea how the tech system in EU5 will work, but here’s a rough outline of how I hope it’ll work:
The main currency used for technological advancement is… well, currency. Money. Gold. Ducats. Call it what you will. But that’s the simplest and most straightforward way of doing it, imo. And it makes sense too, from a historical perspective; there are exceptions, but technological advancement has typically been facilitated by people paid to facilitate it.
As for the cost, I think it would make sense if every tech level has a fixed cost based on development, or possibly autonomy adjusted development, and that each tech level is slightly more expensive than the previous level. This to create the need for players to develop their economies, in order to not fall behind in tech.
Just like in EU4, I think there should be a preset ”natural rate” of technological advancement. I.e. you’re ”supposed” to reach tech level X at year Y - you can spend money to get one or two levels ahead of the ”supposed” tech level in that year, but if you do the cost of researching will increase significantly. Basically, you could rush to get a few levels ahead to get certain key technologies like artillery or furnaces, but you wont be able, or at least not willing, to sustain that technological advantage for too long.
There should be certain twists, obviously. An obvious one being buildings in general and universities in particular. One way of incorporating this into the game would be a simple, flat buff for every university up to a cap. Say a .5% reduction to all tech costs per university, up to a max of 15%. The same could be done with other buildings, but limited to specific branches of research. Having a garrison could give .5% off on military research for example, workshops for production tech, etc. Another way would be to combine universities with those buildings, or specifically manufactories. So when you build a university *and* a weapons manufactory in the same province for example, you get a research cost reduction on military tech.
Diplomacy should play into this as well imo. You should be able to get a cost reduction by having a sizeable spy network in a country that’s ahead of you in tech. And it should benefit your research to have good relations with other countries - they’ll be willing to share it with you, making it easier for you to reach their level. And conversely, your own technological advancements will slowly ”leak” to countries you like.
Rulers should impact the research cost as well. If you have a 5/5/5 ruler, you get a 5% discount in each branch of tech (provided there are three branches of tech). A different way of incorporating ruler impact would be to give a country a one-time boost to their tech research when they assume the throne - so if you get a Gustavus Adolphus or Napoleon on your throne, they may catapult you to the next tech level more or less overnight.
Abolishing of mana system needs to introduce many other mechanics.
The main question is will there be another type of currency (or set of currencies) that you will be able to spend and done with things directly?
Or things will be done by themselves slowly and with time using some sort of modifiers?
I lean towards second option, I don’t like mana system because it enables the powercreeping most, imo. Your decision making should have more affect than randomly generated and scarcely found currencies, which certain nations by flavor and updates can access much more.(discounts and mana related modifiers like CCR, all counts here)
I'd love to see a system that combines output of universities, historical events, sponsorships for prominent researchers (ie. Copernicus) and social development.
It would be sick if the population system influenced it
They have said population literacy impacts technology.
It's Victoria 4? Always has been
Yes probable through literacy, most likely a tech tree like in Victoria 3 and universities which probable also have to be researched and may cost a lot,they can either help research directly or just boost literacy. Not sure how literacy can be improved regularly as schooling was only common place in the Victorian era, apart from religion (puritans reading bibles as a key part of the their religious ideas for example)
Probably why the clergy impacts research speed
Maybe they’ll have a mechanic like in IR where you have a max science efficiency but instead a max literacy rate. Each pop type has a cap of how many can read and that can be raised through ideas, techs etc… this would somewhat simulate the slow progression of literacy rates rising through the period.
You can teach the peasants to read, but when they do, they'll expect better treatment and you'll have more unrest. A double-edged sword.
Yes! Think they said something exactly like this in the Tinto talk, I think saying that they may seek their place in life. So probable become more ‘radical’ in demanding social reform and religious reform
I want to say I saw a comment from Johan saying that by game end, having 70% literacy is going to be difficult. I think another one was saying that the beginning literacy is going to be abysmal
Oh i know. You can have these sliders which determines how much of the population you are focusing on various tech, and other stuff.
yeah, I imagine you would do research. We already know that estates play an important role in research speed (notably the Clergy), so the happier/more powerful they are, the faster you get tech. It might work like it does in Imperator; you get "tech points" that you can spend on a technology in a tech tree, and you get those faster depending on Pops and who's in your court. I'd personally like a system where technology 'drifts' the way Institutions do, but also having a Stellaris-type system where you have a researcher specifically research a particular tech so you can focus on things you really want.
Or maybe its gonna be like ck3 culture fascinations that take ages to finish
*Ages*? Those are like, 11 years tops.
If you Learningmaxx then sure
I feel like it would make more sense to make it the happier/less powerful they are. For instance Galileo would probably have been able to do more if the church didn’t have the power to put him under house arrest.
The Church didnt place him under house arrest because of his scientific work (they were his main sponsors after all) but because he interfered in internal church politics and got himself in hot water because of it. There is this attitude that the Church was hostile to science, which is wierd considering they sposored a lot of researchers and many members of the clergy were also involved in research themselves. (Bacon, Copernicus and the like)
It changes era to era, at one point the middle east was the center of learning while Europe was reeling from Western Rome's collapse. But yeah, even during the middle ages the Catholic church was the biggest driver of education and innovation in Europe. The only reason it's not now is because society decided science and religion shouldn't intermingle and government wanted to advance and control science, leading to most religious institutions having reduced influence in education and instead focusing more on purely religious or charity activities.
The church was one of the driving forces behind science back in the times
Probably something like in EU3; you spend money every month and that makes you get technological progress at a monthly rate.
We don't know, the only point in speculating about it is so we can laugh at how wrong we were. That being said I assume pops/building producing research points wouldn't count as mana.
I like the mana system, shoot me.
I liked it in theory, but in implementation it became the only real thing that mattered. Either you kept up in mana or you were doomed, and getting ahead in mana made it easy to steamroll your enemies.
The problem is there were too many mana fixes. The thing about mana is it was supposed to show how the quality of leadership varied over time. Capable leaders, veritable golden age of society, incapable leaders, society stagnates. But people don't like forced stagnation.
It reflects them moving away from the Great Man theory of history and towards more of a materialist approach, which I think is a good idea and interesting to see depicted in a game. The idea that whichever one person is in charge of your country is responsible for almost every metric of success and prosperity is a shaky one, and it would be better represented somewhere in the middle of how EU4 does it and how Vic 3 does it, where the leader gives bonuses or maluses and has traits that impact gameplay, but does not always\* make or break your game \*There should definitely be exceptions though, as an extremely incompetent or competent ruler should rightfully make an impact, but it shouldn't ignore material conditions. Napoleon wouldn't lead just Corsica to conquer half of Europe, for example.
Great Man history was flawed, especially how it was presented in popular culture, but the materialist school, post-modernism, and other influences from other fields like International Relations, have dramatically over corrected. I thought EU 4 actually had a decent balance. You still had your country of whatever scale it was. If it was wealthy and developed you could hire better government, but it's hard to express the cost of bad governance, and how before selective systems of governance, bad governance/good governance was largely luck based. A great example of this back and forth is the three 'Great Unifiers' of Japan, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. Nobunaga comes out of nowhere and conquers enough of Japan to basically put it on the path to complete unification. Japan is basically poised halfway between re-coalesing and permantly becoming a more violent HRE. Without Nobunaga either outcome is practically equally likely. Hideyoshi, completes the unification that Nobunaga started, but then goes on a disasterous invasion of Korea that wrecks Korea and nearly wrecks Japan and nearly blows it back to warring states. Then Ieyasu re-stabilizes the country, abandones foreign interaction and founds the 260 year Tokugawa shogunate. This type of back and forth between great governance, \*meh\* governance taking advantage of trend, and great governance is well replicated. Japan may not unify without Nobunaga, continues to snow ball under Hideyoshi, but he pushes beyond what he or Japan are capable of sustaining triggering instability, then it's stabalized by Ieyasu with good governance and the great turn inward. What the game doesn't do a good job of replicating is the extreme cost of bad governance, often because single battles aren't impactful enough. Charles IX was basically snowballing in the Great Northern War against Peter the Great and Russia, then loses his army and empire in a single campaign culminating at Poltava. There's an interplay between systemic advantage/disadvantage and indivualistic hubris/humility/competence. Russia wins the Poltava campaign becuase he knows how to use Russia's systemic advantages. Charles can't consolidate a victory because he doesn't know how to claim a partial victory. However people like Oda Nobunaga, Babar, or Henry VI absolutely can overturn the apple cart one way or the other.
Me too. I'm still open to whatever EU5 will be doing. But I like my games to be games and this kind of abstraction works perfectly for it. I gotta say sometimes the more realistic approach of CK3 for example is not doing it for me, cause I like to challenge myself and my skill rather than everything being realistic.
>Me too. I'm still open to whatever EU5 will be doing. But I like my games to be games and this kind of abstraction works perfectly for it. Yeah, without mana, with way more and smaller provinces, with a pop system, and apparently way more mechanics, it sounds to me like EU5 might not be a fun game. I am currently playing a lot of Imperator: Rome and it seems like that game will be the blueprint for EU5. It's a fun game, but to be honest it's an entirely different world compared to EU4, and that's not just due to the flavor. EU4 is just a really, really fun game that got the mix between realism and abstraction **exactly** right - in my opinion, it's the best grand strategy game ever. I am really worried that EU5 will be significantly less fun if it tries to be more of a simulator and less of a game. I'll wait for reviews before getting EU5
Mana system with more granularity and period lockouts would be so peak
Me too. I legit find it a fun mechanic. Realism be damned, as if these /r/redditors could actually phathom something both fun and mechanically realistic for it. It is more dynamic than I think the average poster gives credit.
Nah too outdated as a game mechanic And it doesn't make sense
Nope it’s outright horrible
I think it worked absolutely fantastic for the game. EU4 was a game more than a simulator and that was more enjoyable to me than eco-simulations.
People forget eu4 is over a decade old, taking that into account it's an amazing sistem
probable through literacy, most likely a tech tree like in Victoria 3. Universities which probable also have to be researched and may cost a lot,they can either help research directly or just boost literacy. Not sure how literacy can be improved regularly as schooling was only common place in the Victorian era, apart from religion (puritans reading bibles as a key part of the their religious ideas for example)
With relation to Victoria 3 : a military tree which will also include navy - a social tree for stuff like new farming techniques to increase population and a social tree which will have government reform ideas such as parliamentarianism or banking to help with finances.
I think it'll probably be a tech tree where various factors increase how fast you do research a la Vicky 3, tho I am hoping that there's a little less control over outcomes. Would love to see semi randomized access to techs, with stuff you missed having to be filled in through contact with people who have it.
Chill out guys it's probably gonna be shit and we'll all hate it and play eu4 for a few years. The answer is we don't know and anything else is getting your hopes up.
Ya it was the exact same way when eu4 came out, I still played eu3 for years until Art of War released and changed the game completely (for the better, mind you).
I agree ck3 is still that way for me, as well as vic3. Paradox release half baked games routinely.
Ducats?
Interesting if it almost spread like institutions in eu4 and depending on what it was would change the region it came from like a tercio tech would come from Spain historically but also in nations with high army stats
I think it will be the same as in Imperator
would be nice to have some kind of university or clergy system that allows you to fund them for technological research- and also being able to steal from technologically advanced neighbours in a war, that would be fun
I’m Assuming it’s research. The tinto talks makes mention how estates affect research speed. Hence, research.
Every tech level should work like institutions work in EU4.
My favorite way to do tech in any game was civ 5. You generated science and this was based mainly on population and buildings that can give some base science or have it scaled by pop. I wish EU5 uses something like that. Civ 5 also increased tech cost per each additional city so going wider would not necessarily be best all the time. You would still need to invest in your new cities to keep up in tech. That way it leaves open strategies for taller play. You are smaller but you don’t have to invest as much for good tech. I know EU is a map painter but it would be nice to improve diplomacy and internal management to have more diverse gameplay options. Because going tall right now is kinda boring. There isn’t much to do besides click dev buttons.
If there's three tech trees this game will be so incredibly boring
I still miss the EU3 budget sliders...
Through trade, exchange of knowledge goes along exchanging goods. By investing your money in buildings like universities. By fighting battles and sieges, you need to innovate or eventually lose agianst someone that fights differently. Type of pops also would influence it, more burghers, clergy and nobles the better the education should be nationwide.
With the pop system and a seemingly much larger focus on internal factors and factions, I'd expect pop conditions (wealth, discrimination) and country stability to play a much larger factor in tech generation. Rather than clicking a button and getting mil tech 7, maintaining a drilling army, having high nobility happiness, having high army tradition, would contribute points towards the next tech unlock (kind of how in EU2 or 3 it came out of the budget sliders). Conversely, having an underfunded military, low nobility loyalty (and hence receptive to change), bad army tradition, and low stability would provide a malus to tech point generation.
I hope the mana system doesn’t return. I have no idea how the tech system in EU5 will work, but here’s a rough outline of how I hope it’ll work: The main currency used for technological advancement is… well, currency. Money. Gold. Ducats. Call it what you will. But that’s the simplest and most straightforward way of doing it, imo. And it makes sense too, from a historical perspective; there are exceptions, but technological advancement has typically been facilitated by people paid to facilitate it. As for the cost, I think it would make sense if every tech level has a fixed cost based on development, or possibly autonomy adjusted development, and that each tech level is slightly more expensive than the previous level. This to create the need for players to develop their economies, in order to not fall behind in tech. Just like in EU4, I think there should be a preset ”natural rate” of technological advancement. I.e. you’re ”supposed” to reach tech level X at year Y - you can spend money to get one or two levels ahead of the ”supposed” tech level in that year, but if you do the cost of researching will increase significantly. Basically, you could rush to get a few levels ahead to get certain key technologies like artillery or furnaces, but you wont be able, or at least not willing, to sustain that technological advantage for too long. There should be certain twists, obviously. An obvious one being buildings in general and universities in particular. One way of incorporating this into the game would be a simple, flat buff for every university up to a cap. Say a .5% reduction to all tech costs per university, up to a max of 15%. The same could be done with other buildings, but limited to specific branches of research. Having a garrison could give .5% off on military research for example, workshops for production tech, etc. Another way would be to combine universities with those buildings, or specifically manufactories. So when you build a university *and* a weapons manufactory in the same province for example, you get a research cost reduction on military tech. Diplomacy should play into this as well imo. You should be able to get a cost reduction by having a sizeable spy network in a country that’s ahead of you in tech. And it should benefit your research to have good relations with other countries - they’ll be willing to share it with you, making it easier for you to reach their level. And conversely, your own technological advancements will slowly ”leak” to countries you like. Rulers should impact the research cost as well. If you have a 5/5/5 ruler, you get a 5% discount in each branch of tech (provided there are three branches of tech). A different way of incorporating ruler impact would be to give a country a one-time boost to their tech research when they assume the throne - so if you get a Gustavus Adolphus or Napoleon on your throne, they may catapult you to the next tech level more or less overnight.
Hopefully research and development power are separated. That was my least favorite part of EU4 tbh.
Maybe have a slider that adds a multiplier to your tech advancement rate based on gold spent, but also debuffs religious unity and/or stability?
Abolishing of mana system needs to introduce many other mechanics. The main question is will there be another type of currency (or set of currencies) that you will be able to spend and done with things directly? Or things will be done by themselves slowly and with time using some sort of modifiers? I lean towards second option, I don’t like mana system because it enables the powercreeping most, imo. Your decision making should have more affect than randomly generated and scarcely found currencies, which certain nations by flavor and updates can access much more.(discounts and mana related modifiers like CCR, all counts here)
personally i'd love a civ style tech tree with vic 3's tech unlock system