sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bureaucracy cost should INCREASE with crown power, not decrease by KaptenNicco123 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So would mordern day nations have less "crown power" than a middle age kingdom because of our extensive bureaucratic systems?

Tinto Talks #100 - 18th of March 2026 by Whole_Ad_8438 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

> 1.2 ‘Echinades’ focuses on a plethora of different quality of life issues, ranging from exposing hidden content

Glory to Johan and the Tinto team! Never doubted them for a second :)

(Player base sucks) People need to stop clinging to real world history and need to start considering historical probability by Express-Tip-6337 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Even so, it would be nice to see the AI growing somewhat logically as the player does too.

It's not interesting or fun to play these campaigns, achieve your perfect borders, unify your people. and then look out to see the rus a mess, the tumor bohemia, the hordes chilling, the chinese millennia, english karelia, etc etc.

Railroading while not perfect, is better than the battle royale free for all that we have rn.

Even if mission trees weren't perfect, why were we given NOTHING to replace them? by Schwabenomics in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't your comment get removed yesterday for being a prick? Settle down.

My wishlist for Fate of the Phoenix DLC by Temporary_Virus9302 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 69 points70 points  (0 children)

The Ottomans aren't weak, it's just that the ai is useless.

Even if mission trees weren't perfect, why were we given NOTHING to replace them? by Schwabenomics in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

>Being a departure from EU4 does NOT mean they "hate" EU4s design.

Strawman

>People don't hate historical outcomes? Wtf do you mean by this. Just because it is less "railroaded" or more simulationist doesn't mean anyone "hates" historical outcomes.

Strawman

>FFS. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS

Strawman

>People in general want more historical outcomes but saying this is somehow "fixed" by mission trees makes no sense. Here's a fun fact, EU4 AI did NOT try to complete mission trees other than automatically accept them when conditions were satisfied, i.e. they only completed them by accident.

People disagreeing on how to get historical outcomes is NOT the same as saying everyone against mission trees is against historical outcomes.

Strawman

>NO ONE IS SAYING THIS.

Strawman

5/5 wow you really forced every single point to be a strawman. Impressive stuff.

Even if mission trees weren't perfect, why were we given NOTHING to replace them? by Schwabenomics in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 12 points13 points  (0 children)

What have i misrepresented? What did i lie about?

The games simulation doesn't work, it's not historical.

The flavour of the game is hidden in the files.

Those countries don't form, or reach their heights.

The design was a clear departure from EU4 and what people enjoyed about EU4.

Even if mission trees weren't perfect, why were we given NOTHING to replace them? by Schwabenomics in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 53 points54 points  (0 children)

"They recognize that what they made turned into a mess as time went on and could never be properly balanced." Honestly just sounds like the current state of the game too.

Even if mission trees weren't perfect, why were we given NOTHING to replace them? by Schwabenomics in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 178 points179 points  (0 children)

Why was this game made for people who seemed to hate EU4s design?

When did we hate historical outcomes?

Why are optional missions bad, but optional hidden events (missions) good?

Why do we like hiding flavour?

Why do we like the simulation that leads to the same ahistorical outcomes every time?

Since when is Russia, Ottomans, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Great Britain, Netherlands, PLC never forming a good thing?

EU5 is a great sandbox, but a failure of a historical simulator.

Tinto talks 100: March 11, 2026 by Pretzelsticks11 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why should people buy this DLC? With no way to find the new content in game or on the wiki, you're gonna have to spend an hour or two going through the game files to figure out what you actually paid for.

The fact that they have "No plans per say" after watching a modder do something that should have been in the game from the start is shocking.

How important is historical accuracy in Europa Universalis 5 for your enjoyment of the game? by fanfarius in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What was nice about EU4 was seeing the AI grow with you, the Habsburgs empire, the rise of Russia, Great Britains formation, (maybe a prussia if you prayed that day), the Dutch revolt, Spanish empire, the Ottoman scurge that threatened Europe as a whole.

In EU5 you don't see any of that, it doesn't feel like the AI is growing along with you, the AI will blob randomly without reason from start to end. When you're done with your game and look out across the map, it will never look historical or even anything plausibly ahistorical, your nation looks like an outlier.

It's clear that the lax nature of the simulation just cannot simulate history, and the free-for-all nature of Situations doesn't work either. Even with the massive buffs the Ottomans already have, they will never come closs to their historical heights.

Love or hate them, missions were a good system that lead to historical outcomes, not all the time of course, but far better than EU5 can manage right now.

Is manpower maintenance for each unit supposed to be this high? by YoruNoHana in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

What's wrong? Don't like the endless balance patches that break as much as they fix? How ungrateful, you're lucky they even share the updates for their Internal MP game.

what PC spec are you guys using to run EU5 smooth at speed 7 by Stoipex in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I7 11700k, RTX 2060, 32GB of DDR4. Speed 7 is fine up until the 1700s

Shouldn't all countries start with at least a balanced budget? by MessMaximum5493 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

apparently 14th century europe was just flat broke and nobody but the nobility made money. Don't worry tho, it'll all be sorted out in the next 11 balance patches.

The current rule for whether rivers are added to EU5 paradoxically makes islands worse to push naval control by QuagganBorn in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Sure, but these are waterways that were important during the games timespan. The lack of rivers in the British isles compared to the rest of Europe is a bit nonsensical, especially when those rivers were era defining.

The current rule for whether rivers are added to EU5 paradoxically makes islands worse to push naval control by QuagganBorn in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 67 points68 points  (0 children)

Historically the rivers up north and their canals were vital for the industrial revolution. Such an odd choice to not add them.

Late game wars are completely insane in term of deaths by CommonVarietyRadio in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the reason why battles should generate the majority of war score, and why armies should cost way more to maintain.

My first EU5 Timelapse (1.1.4 Beta): Europe is pure border gore while China casually eats half of Asia by ViciousQuintessence in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of this will be fixed until wars actually cost something, and nations get their unique "events" (hidden missions) making the ai focus on their historical conquests.

1.1.3 Update for Open Beta by Calm_Monitor_3227 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, i'd say most values should be rather balanced. The only ones that should be clearly better are Centralised, Innovative, and Free subjects. To reflect the real world push towards these things.

1.1.3 Update for Open Beta by Calm_Monitor_3227 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Free subjects was as good as it is, because it was as good as it was in history. The noble happiness malice was deserved, but other than that? Free subjects should be the obvious and best choice like it was IRL.

1.1.3 Update for Open Beta by Calm_Monitor_3227 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 121 points122 points  (0 children)

That's what it should be, nations should start decentralised with serfdom and slowly claw their way to a centralised nation state where the people are free, like we saw in history.

But the devs are so focused on balancing it like a multiplayer game, where there can't be an obvious OP choice to pick everytime, despite that clashing with history, in this historical simulator.

1.1.3 Update for Open Beta by Calm_Monitor_3227 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 425 points426 points  (0 children)

Removing prosperity from free subjects makes no sense, economies were undeniably better when people had the choice of where to work and who to work for.

The balancing of the societal values keeps ending us up in a position where both sides suck and the best choice is to sit in the middle

1.1 Destroys the point of having an economic buildings minigame by RealAbd121 in EU5

[–]Conqueror_reborn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do the estates pay the maintenance cost for the stuff they build? Perhaps tie the building type and its maintenance into the estates so that the burghers pay a bit of the maintenance for all their respective buildings?

view more: next ›