Europa Universalis V confirmed

[crazy canuck]

I enjoyed losing in CK2, which was good because I almost always eventually did. At least if I started at the early starting dates.

At least there you had a fighting chance

[Norgy]

The earliest starting dates in CK2 were just myth-based, weren't they?

But I enjoyed both CK2 and CK3, even though all my decent sons always died before me, and when I, after having about 18 of them, died, the country was in a turmoil and my heir immediately was declared war upon by all and sundry.

"This is your inheritance son"
"What, the curtains?"
"Eh, no, your 14 brothers outside the shitty stronghold your father did not have coin to upgrade"

[Solmyr]

They certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).

Sounds promising. Must say though I've never encountered a game which truly succeeds in making losing fun.

Dwarf Fortress.

[Solmyr]

I'm also thinking it's a day one purchase, though it tends to be that with most Paradox games for me. I watched Red Hawk's video, he does a good job of presenting the game's mechanics without using shenanigans or exploits or somesuch.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

They certainly seem to take a kitchen sink approach with this a one. Laith said in his video that the game seems more geared towards simulation and less painting the map, though he has concerns about balance and whether all the systems will tie into each other meaningfully. He also commented that the game start seems slow. And he thinks that the game starts close to the Black Death to "teach" players that setbacks in the game are fine and you can recover from them (i.e., losing a war or having all your peasants drafted dying in battle doesn't mean having to start over).

Sounds promising. Must say though I've never encountered a game which truly succeeds in making losing fun.

Dwarf Fortress.

rimworld. But yeah, Dwarf Fortress is the absolute chad in that regard

[Norgy]

Dwarf Fortress is the only game I have had pleasure in losing at.
Well, and EU IV. Stackwiped by Ottomans 110k army as Russia? Well, let us see what they say about our all new infantry raised in Moscow.
Again? Well, fuck me.

[Syt]

Laith going over the game mechanics (so far).

[crazy canuck]

 

[DGuller]

This definitely seems like an ambitious design.  I hope Paradox has the skills to execute on it.  I would definitely be interested in playing this soon after release if the consensus is that they didn't mess it up.

[Tamas]

Laith going over the game mechanics (so far).

Drastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.

[Josquius]

Laith going over the game mechanics (so far).

Drastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.

Realistic I'd think?
It is a typical weird thing in strategy games that trade tends to be so unimportant and tax a  reliable, predictable steady source of income like in the modern world.

Though I imagine it's something that differs widely between countries.
Thinking about England in particular... Seems it'd be quite a gameplay challenge to represent how skint monarchs tended to be yet still managing to pull together armies and navies where needed.

[Syt]

Drastically more income from trade than taxes for the state seems very silly.

Hopefully something that will be balanced before launch.

[DGuller]

All the videos make it look like a no-brainer that you should carpet your territories with market buildings.  That alone makes it look unbalanced.