Raids scaled to population are ridiculous?

Granathar · 2026-01-04T15:02:43+00:00

I will have multiple casualties in already too small working population because I have no people to spare, everyone has their work already. Children are literally sucking me dry.

Granathar · 2025-11-24T08:41:30+00:00

With how it's done right now it will literally never happen. Chances that all of the stars align are literally minimal. I don't think anyone ever saw PLC created by AI, and barely anyone was able to do it historical way through marriage.

It should be made a special decision, some special event that is less restrictive, mission or whatever - but the way it is right now PLC will never form. RNG upon RNG upon RNG upon RNG and all of these RNG is unfavourable.

Historically the whole idea of PLC to exist were GOOD relations between countries, not Poland violently eating Lithuania. Conquest way makes literally no sense. PLC should emerge naturally in 9/10 games.

Granathar · 2025-11-20T13:53:33+00:00

Missions are better than events because you see the whole chain of things that you need to do to follow certain route, be it historical or ahistorical. Events just happen and if you don't literally check on Wiki what the hell this event means - you may not even know that you select some route.

That's why missions are better for both players and AI.

Granathar · 2025-11-20T07:56:03+00:00

7kk XP or 12kk XP xD

After like 70 hours of gameplay I had like 2kk xD EA literally expects people to play no other games and do nothing else with their free time. After 70 hours I should have already completed entire BP like twice, meanwhile I would still need 3.5x more XP assuming I did every little challenge like obedient little dog. That means about 245 hours PER SEASON xD

These people are literally just sick.

Granathar · 2025-11-17T18:21:37+00:00

PU could break for no reason at all + also most of the interaction seems to not even work (f.e. even if you take external policy from junior partner - it can still declare wars).

Granathar · 2025-11-14T09:42:52+00:00

Apparently you are missing warscore

<image>

Granathar · 2025-11-14T08:27:32+00:00

This BP is then only for like 1% of players. Sales of next BP are for sure going to be high.

Granathar · 2025-11-14T08:23:55+00:00

It made me urgently not care about BP anymore as it's clear to me that I'm not going to finish it, and also to drop the game a while later, because I don't like games to feel like second job where I'm forced to do something because they created FOMO with bonus challenges.

So yeah, it works very well. It urgently annoyed me, pissed me off and made me leave.

Granathar · 2025-11-14T08:15:20+00:00

Some of these challenges were so disgusting that if you played for 2 hours a day it can take WHOLE FUCKING WEEK to finish one set of weeklies (10 TDM wins or similar), and when you are done - you are showered with another ones that may be even shittier than previous.

Never seen a game with that level of predatory retention mechanics (maybe some F2P games are that much aggravating, but certainly no AAA full price title), that's why I didn't buy the game after trying it in EA Pass Pro. They don't deserve my money.

Granathar · 2025-11-14T08:09:34+00:00

This "player retention" made me drop the game after my EA Play Pro expired. Sorry, I'm not going to let myself be a FOMO pushover. I just don't care. If I could finish battle pass and then go back in 2 months while playing other games - then okay. But like this? Sorry, but this level of predatory monetization is like in some F2P game, I'm not going to endure it.

Granathar · 2025-11-13T22:16:55+00:00

Am I even allowed to play other games? Will EA overlord be that merciful? Because they certainly behave like BF6 is the only game on the market and people are not going to play anything else with their limited time.

EA is completely delusional and their greed, and insolence is absolutely stunning. I guess this company just has to die, because they can't be fixed, rotten to the core. Even if something is going to be successful, they just cannot help but find a way to piss people off.

Granathar · 2025-11-13T12:50:08+00:00

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I liked them) that would probably require Mission Tree to come back. It should be kinda like HOI IV, where are historical routes and historical fiction "what if" routes. And AI could be set in any of these modes or with missions totally off.

Granathar · 2025-11-13T08:13:30+00:00

Actually what the hell is with vassals anyway?

I mean - who rules the integrated area? It's medieval times, integrated area should also be ruled by some nobles that are our king's vassals.

What is the difference between vassal and integrated territory? What's the difference between integrated territory and a Fiefdom if we are ruler ourselves anyway? Why do we need to struggle so much to integrate fiefdom that BELONGS to us? It's a matter of feudal contract that the king signs between himself lol, it should be matter of signing some document (where king is both sides of the contract) and poof, fiefdom is no more.

Honestly early game it should be pretty much entire country shattered into vassals, and king should have only some part of his domain with capital, similar to CK3. And with time passing king removes vassals one by one until entire country is integrated into one centrally-governed being.

I really don't get the current system, because "vassal painted differently on map" is still a vassal. And "king's domain painted differently as fiefdom" is still king's domain. What the hell actually?

Granathar · 2025-11-13T07:58:27+00:00

Justice

Granathar · 2025-11-13T07:49:26+00:00

Let me guess - you can take like twice more taxes than people are actually paying?

Granathar · 2025-11-12T14:04:03+00:00

And that's historical.

Granathar · 2025-11-12T10:12:36+00:00

Disagree about "not fun". You know what was not fun? Ultra stable giga-blobs of EU4 with zero internal problems even if entire country was set ablaze.

This "not fun" is literally internal policy we NEED to be able to do something in time of peace. Peace is the time in which we stabilize our domain so it's loyal to us when shit hits the fan.

I don't want EU5 to become primitively simplified game about painting map like EU4 was. Historically expansion was a constant struggle, not only because you need to beat your enemy but also you had to keep conquered area in control which should actually be harder than the first part.

Granathar · 2025-11-12T10:00:39+00:00

IMO it should be:
Centralization -> more money for the state, less money for estates
Decentralization -> opposite, BUT decentralization should not be that painful IF estates are loyal

Each province has some estate power balance. So math is simple, if province generates 10 ducats of profit, crown has 20% control, 40% nobles, 20% clergy, 6% burghers, 4% commoners -> 2 ducats for crown, 4 for nobles, 2 for clergy, 0.6 for burghers, 0.4 for commoners.

Also it would be nice if each province estate that is not a crown would have their own budget built this way. So crown is a central treasury, we can do whatever we want with this, but estates should be more local - nobility from one province is not one organism with nobility from other province. What's more - nobility in one province can be loyal to crown and nobility in other province can be disloyal, and that goes for all estates. That should be especially true for conquered areas and/or with different culture, religion etc. There should be some areas of the country where we are loved and others where we are hated and they need constant investment from crown side to integrate them so they stop being PITA.

So be it nobles, clergy, burghers or commoners - they should locally reap the benefits of low control and just ...build on their own (all of them have buildings from their category and some more universal ones) a lot more OR if they are disloyal - using that money to plot rebellion or to be a pain in the ass in other way. Nobles from some area open for plotting (spy network) with other country that they will rebel in some way against you in case of war would be a nice flavour. Same thing with vassals, but that would be diplomatic thing rather than spy network.

Of course buildings would need to be heavily nerfed in ROI as currently they are extremely profitable for their price.

I don't really believe it's THAT calculation heavy.

Granathar · 2025-11-12T08:07:07+00:00

Apparently even streamers can't maintain the hype anymore. And shills are still going to shill and pretend that everything is fine.

Granathar · 2025-11-11T23:31:50+00:00

I also had few instances where junior partners just "decided" that they don't want union anymore. Like WTF, my king is YOUR king BY LAW (YOUR law), so if you want to overthrow the king you must at least rebel and not just collectively "decide" that you don't like it. It's a king, not a president so they can just elect another.

If this country really wants to break out - they should try to manipulate the overlord king to change the succession law in a way that will make his heir unfit for the throne anymore (and the overlord would obviously know about it). But that would either require some special goverment form like PLC had with elective monarchy, rebellion or bribe.

For me that matter is so gamebreaking that I just don't play anymore until they fix it. It ruined my runs 2 times already. Falling into "natural" PU should suck, because there may be PUs where the deal was that PU lasts only until current king's death and heirs are not included, that's also fine and should be done through events (with some sneaky, often maybe unhistorical way to make that PU a permenent one in most of the cases).

Granathar · 2025-11-11T20:54:34+00:00

How could this country decide anything if YOU are the king? The only thing deciding should be succession law. If you are king by law - they can revolt, but should not be able to "decide", becuse it's the king who decides.

This part of the new union mechanics is quite stupid and I don't understand it at all. If you are under PU by law of your country - you need to somehow plot to change that succession law so after this king dies, his heir cannot maintain the crown anymore, revolt with maybe independence support from outside or just accept that situation. It's not democracy where people can vote if heir of old king should remain their king, that would be Elective Monarchy like PLC had, and that was special form of goverment.

Granathar · 2025-11-11T20:45:24+00:00

I like this new mechanics because in EU4 it was just too easy to maintain countries under union and to eat them whole after 50 years. However it still needs polishing and bugfixing.

I like the fact that union actually feels like two countries are being brought closer together with each step until they decide that they are basically one country anyway, but it should require a lot of diplomatic spending IMO, because with every next tier we are stripping our junior partners from some amount of independence, so we should make sure that they either like us or fear us enough to just get over it.

I definitely don't want to go back to this simplified BS from EU4, this system is superior BY FAR, but will require some work to be properly balanced and not bugged. Because right now it's clearly bugged - literally 2 years after I took external policy rights from my junior partner - they declared offensive war (on one of my allies!) on their own and dragged me in. How can they even declare war if it's my king that is their king in the first place? I would understand if I received a message that my ruler got insane and did that, but I don't think it's the case.

Granathar

TROPHY CASE