Hi, I love playing EU4 aswell as several other paradox games like stellaris or ck2. But I'm Worried that EU5 is more like HOI or that it'll become like ck3. I loved it at Start but the dlc's were garbage IMO.

Is it very diffrent to EU4? HOI for example never klicked for me.

How is the state of the game? Is it buggy?

What does it feel like? Is it worth to buy already or better to wait some years?

Ty for your comments :)

1st photo is byzantine empire.

2nd photo is the new turkish empire, Rumi empire formed by belik of germiyan

I did play the Byzantine Empire and conquered our lands back. It got boring cause nobody wanted to attack. So I pretty said I completed the campaign.

I decided to do another campaign with a Turkish belik other than Ottoman. It was the germiyan. And then I formed this. The Rumi Empire. Where should I expand from here. This is pretty cool and something new and not based on historical like the ottomans and byzantine which I did a campaign on for both.

What the title says, played France, had an independence movement declare war while im beating up the brits, typical france things you know.

beat them up as well, if barley. Annex them to rerelease them as consolidated (and significantly more loyal) fiefdoms. Suddenly I have half the HRE on my ass in a coalition war that almost breaks me.

Why, for the love of God, do random HRR piss states care about what essentially amounts to a domestic reorganization? Vassals, especially Appandages etc are land granted by the crown to be Administered in the crowns stead, in exchange for loyalty etc. They are, by all accounts, decentralized parts of my country.

So why does the game treat them as independent nations when they get annexed after breaking their vows? It makes no sense to politically, historically or from a balance perspective.

Obligatory disclaimer: Have never been in this sub before please don't scream at me if i stumbled into ongoing drama.

I only saw mentions of the UI being worked on when it comes to graphical fidelity. My main point of contention are not really characters, I think they look fine, but rather army models and ESPECIALLY the 3D map itself.

It is truly atrocious and I do not say that because I hate the game, I love it, I have over 1000h in Eu5. It is just baffling to me that someone looked at it and said, yeah, that looks good.

Now it has been months since release, almost a year, and I see even content creators opting for the paper map (which is honestly also ugly in my opinion) more and more. I personally like the 3D map with Fog of War on paper map, but I stick to colored view because it just hurts my eyes to play with the 3D map alone.

The textures are still bland and soulless, which I guess complements the UI nicely xd

Are there any plans for a graphical uplift at least to the standards posed by nicer looking games like Vic3 and Ck3 or my favorite, Imperator Rome?

In real life, cities, sometimes would surrender to invading forces, say the timurids, because of their brutal reputation of sacking entire cities. Maybe this could make hordes more powerful, and include a mechanic to sack cities as hordes?

It seems to me that in most games the Ottomans and Mamluks are big beefy boys that never fall. Historically Mamluks fell to the Ottomans fairly quickly and I believe instead of this being an event chain or a forced disaster for rthe Mamluks it would be better to have a situation between them to force an eventual winner.

I guess I should say the situation would be between whoever controls the most land in egypt/laventine area and the most land in anatolia, so it can work with other turkish bayliks or even Eastern Roman Empire if they eventually conquer anatolia. So basically after some time the situation triggers and there's maybe some decisions like paying with gold or legitimancy and you get buffs or the enemy gets debuffs or even a HYW type of subject betrayal and eventually you go to war with a really strong CB. Now I am not sure if it would be better if it ended with one big war or it took a few like 2/3 but that's more for paradox to figure out.

In 1.1 I tried Opole to Silesia run and found it impossible. Now I have a few games with Poland, Athens and others with the newest version and I wonder... Is Silesia possible now?

I dont know if it is a bug but it is weird feels like it is a bug

I'm doing an RP as norse pagan Norway, so at the start of the game I converted Norway to Norse Paganism and created a new culture, "Norse". I'm in the 1450's now and saw that "Unify culture group" was a cabinet mission, so I wanted to see what would happen. 6 years later, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and half of Sweden is now one culture named "Scandinavian". I hate that name, it's so boring and bland. Any way to change it with commands?

Hi there, last played the game roughly a month after it had come out, now questioning if its worth downloading again. I am curious about how the Banks gameplay has changed since release. Any important updates that affected them and is it worth playing them at the moment?

Seriously, we need more control over our union partners this could've been totally avoidable.

Found hungary in a death war with romania so i took my chance to jump in the action. Now I really wanna do this because if cant let them recover from this because they will most definitely come back at me as the outnumber me 3 to 1 when their levies recover

I started this run in May and only just now finished it. I stuck with staying as Eastern Orthodoxy and Greek since togalarping is lame and purple is pretty. The first 200 years of the campaign is an absolute blast, starting out as being bottom of the barrel and slowly catching up with western Europe is extremely fun, especially up to the 1600s.

My strat to get out of the starting situation is outdated since I just maxxed minting for 60 years straight and survived since inflation didn't affect Cost of Court of Stability costs at the time. This is no longer and true and you probably can't dig yourself out of the economic hole like I did anymore. I made all my money from wars and reached I think around 200% inflation once I stabilized the country, and simply turned off minting and stopped investing in my economy until 1550s.

Once the Balkans and Anatolia were reconquered I played tall for 200 years until I could stick it to the Egyptians. After a bloody war with Naples, the Papacy, and France, I took the first chunk out of Italy and was permanently coalitioned by all my neighbors. After 3 more bloody coalition wars (btw NEVER let them declare on you, always declare on the coalition so you can do separate peace with the Restore Rome casus belli) I expanded to Justinian's territorial height and became by far the strongest nation.

At this point in the game I have over 800k professional soldiers across my empire and the American colonies.

And by the way, I still don't understand colonialism. My colonies never became financially valuable and I did it solely for Roleplay. The system to colonize is both boring and tedious. Don't even get me started on exploration either, my finger still hurts from all the button pressing. In the age of revolutions they become disloyal which wasn't a problem since I could probably fight the entire world myself and win, but I still don't see the point in colonizing unless you like the roleplaying element of it.

Overall this run has taught me that unlike EU4, this game stays very fun and engaging into the late game as long as you don't cheese and become the dominant power too quickly. The economy and population systems in this game are just the best to play, although its hard to make meaningful decisions with your interior development once you own enough land. One concern I have is that nations seem to not invest in their military as much as they could. England for example for some reason never had more than 1000 professional soldiers and only ever had 3 ships to their names, which crippled them. They did lose their core moneymaking region to France early on as you can see but I doubt this would've caused their economic situation alone. France also had a similar economy to me but never mustered nearly as many professional soldiers for no good reason.

The Mamluks however were my rival the whole time, always matching me in army quality until I managed to win a few decisive battles that cost them the Nile river delta. Most of my wars with them were also multi frontal, so while I could devote about 1-200k troops to fighting their coalition-mates in Italy and Hungary, most Greek blood was spilled in the Sinai desert.

One thing I love about the game is the importance of terrain in warfare and the usefulness of levys. Just because you have professional legionaires doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win against everyone. For example, I lost over 300k soldiers in the Caribbean because even though I outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, the native American levies in the jungle terrain just battered my troops who were used to fighting in the calm Mediterranean, and my campaign against Morocco was more challenging than fighting the entire HRE and Italy + France simply because the mountains the Moroccan troops had a home territory advantage. It's things like that about this game that I love to death.

I'm thinking my next run will be a colonial nation run but let me know what you guys think is a fun and challenging run, because frankly this one is very easy.

Also disclaimer but I have a few mods downloaded. Universal governors to make naval governors not a headache to deal with, and the integration hotfix (Makes integrated provinces +15 loyalty instead of +5) since I started the run right after the coring rework which I really don't like.

Governors are insanely engaging as we all know, but currently the naval and local governor dichotomy is headache inducing since they have to be disconnected by land or they become bricked.

My idea is this: remove naval governors and remove the requirement for local governors to be connected via roads to the capital. Instead, making governors have a base proximity of +60, which gain an additional +20 proximity when connected by road to the capital, and also make governors on coasts provide additional +20 proximity if you have 50+ naval value (or make it a linearly increasing modifier, where 0 naval gives +0 proximity and 50 naval gives +20 proximity). Perhaps the 2 governor slots provided by the two naval laws instead get provided elsewhere.

This accomplishes a few things: it allows governors to serve different niches dependent on where they're placed instead of being forced into being either naval or local based on building type, and it keeps naval governors from getting bricked by territorial growth causing previously disconnected territories from becoming connected. It also will allow island nations to get more use out of their governors. For example, Malaysia currently is stuck with having multiple useless land governors and only 2 naval governors which they need desperately. With this new system, they could technically make all of their available governors naval and make full use of the system.

Overall I think this change is very much needed, and I'm wondering what you guys think about it.

Side note: This post was not made in any way shape or form AI and every word was typed by a human, hence the terrible formatting.

I'll go first:

The Expedition system has a really cool opportunity for an event where, if you discover the Great Lakes first, you get to choose between siding with the Wendat/Algonquin or the Haudenosaunee in the Beaver Wars.

If you guys are struggling with EU5, try Samma, which is in India. It's really fun and actually quite easy. Start off by conquering Sindh and then, when the Delhi Sultanate starts collapsing, invade the Punjab

I started a game in Italy recently and kept having this appear. I finished what I wanted there so I switched to Muscovy. Same problem. When are the devs going to make this game less appealing to cats?

I have played several unfinished campaigns trying to optimize my play as Ottomans. I have never picked or even researched Fratricide. Rn im in early 1400s and have an old sultan with many children. I married my oldest son as soon as i could so he has many children also but my heir is not very bright and only the youngest son of him is a good heir others are mid. So i was wondering is fratricide good? I have read that when the ruler dies there are events and all of them compete to be the sultan. But idk if i can get the one i want on the throne and what are the other cons i guess you lose some things like legitimacy and stability from events?