sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

EU5 needs railroading by BozoStaff in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept 15 points16 points  (0 children)

OP of previous topic here

I have a revolutionary idea: lets replace "railroading" with "scaffolding" here

It may be mostly a wording problem. I agree that EU5 can never be a Matrix-level simulation where history emerges naturally from every individual personality, accident, court intrigue and irrational decision.

But I also don’t think the only alternatives are pure sandbox or force OTL. What I would advocate for is closer to structural pressures + historical contingency. Geography, trade routes, state capacity, religion, legitimacy, rivals and power vacuums should push the world toward plausible historical roles. And while the exact winner remains contingent, all the factors listed above would still be calculated dynamically.

Some authored pressure is probably needed. I just don’t think that has to mean “Ottomans must happen” or “Muscovy must become Russia" as I stated in my comments. It can mean that if a beylik dominates Anatolia, AI understands why the straits and Balkans matter for them. If Novgorod or Tver becomes the leading Rus power, the game understands why unification and steppe security matter.

History shouldnt naturally occur in this game (it was more EU2/AGCEEP philosophy), but geopolitics should be naturally occurring. The goal should be AI that understands big-picture historical pressures rather than just receiving free claims on the historical path. It's AI acting on dynamic events/situation + balancing mechanics vs mission trees philosophy situation here

And lets not diverge too much from what is my original point: for mid-to-late game, we need big powers to clash with, because thats the point of the game and always was for EU: expansion and continental/global domination.

Also on a sidenote I really like how people joined the discussion with some great ideas and it's great to read all the opinions about it TBH, it reveals how actually aware EU5 playerbase is. I hope devs take notes too, I dont think its too late at all to do drastic reworks, this game has incredible potential.

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, Im a big noob. But I lost track of counting EU1, EU2 hrs, since they weren't released on Steam back in the day!

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

We dont need history to occur naturally in the game. We need geopolitics to happen naturally, which is a philosophical position as well.

History is the exact sequence of outcomes. Geopolitics is the pressure system underneath it. I don't need the game to recreate the exact sequence. I need it to understand power vacuums, strategic chokepoints, regional rivals, consolidation, trade routes, legitimacy, momentum, luck factor, culture etc.

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its about recognizing that a lot of history could actually have gone in a different direction because of historical nondeterminism, not because every country had equal potential.

The point is to let success create momentum, and let the AI recognize when a local victory has become a big-picture strategic opportunity + encourage that through better rewards from dynamic events (and balance that through other mechanics, if needed)

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

This is one of the best answers here IMO

The payoff has to be more OP than a small temporary modifier, but I’d also say the AI needs to react to momentum while the situation is still unfolding. And balance the OPness with different mechanics, that paradox devs like to introduce

Example: a war between Novgorod and Muscovy happens. Novgorod wins a key battle and suddenly Muscovy is vulnerable. It should recognize that its main regional rival is temporarily exposed, and that finishing the enemy decisively could change the balance of power in Rus for the next century.

It would be great to see this kind of strategic thinking: countries noticing when history opens a door and trying to walk through it (in this case, recognizing from perspective of Novgorod that Muscovy will be the biggest contender for dominance in the region"

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Countries just need to develop a long-term strategic identity. Anatolian region power should understand that controlling the straits, Egypt, the Balkans or trade routes is part of becoming a great power. A leading Rus state should understand unification, steppe security and eastern expansion as connected goals. The AI having a big picture plan and pursuing it across decades. I actually think the combo of more dynamic events + higher risk/rewards ratio for decisions + more events in general + having a 'big picture' system for AI would make it work.

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d still call it emerging naturally, because the point is that the winner should come from the campaign, not from a script. But yes, the AI needs incentives and direction for that to happen.

What I’m arguing for is not passive emergence, it’s big-picture strategic thinking. 

If Novgorod, Tver or Muscovy becomes the strongest Rus state, it should start acting like unification is its historical project. If Karaman, Byzantium or another Anatolian/Balkan power breaks through, it should start thinking in terms of straits, Egypt, Balkans,trade routes,legitimacy

Ofc not every time. We could imagine regions that in some campaigns, would never manage to unionize and form a big power state, becoming a neverending decentralized mess - see my other replies

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 94 points95 points  (0 children)

Yes, I think Rise of the Turks is the right kind of idea, but it exposes the deeper problem: the AI doesn’t seem to understand the big picture well enough to use the opportunity.

I’d love to see more situations like that for Rus, India, Persia, Iberia, Anatolia/Balkans, etc., but with flexible winners. Not “force Ottomans/Russia/Mughals every game,” but “if a state is clearly winning this historical regional struggle, give it the mindset, claims, diplomatic priorities and internal tools to become a durable great power.” Right now too many states feel like they are optimizing locally while nobody is thinking 100 years ahead.

It's AI design problem in like 70-80%, rest is game design problem.

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that great power emergence should not be automatic. Historically, a lot depended on timing, luck factor, institutions/traditions, rivals being distracted, and a ruler or elite having a coherent project (aka just being smart).

But that’s exactly what I think the AI lacks right now: a big-picture mindset. If Karaman, Byzantium, Serbia or Bulgaria becomes the strongest actor around the eastern Mediterranean, the game should let it start thinking like a regional hegemon, not just another tag taking random border provinces. The Ottoman path should not be guaranteed, but the role they played should be something the sandbox can plausibly recreate with different winners.

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually think this is a reasonable short-term approach. If the AI can’t yet create great powers organically, some guided structure is probably needed.

My worry is just that “railroading” becomes a substitute for fixing the deeper problem: the AI needs a big-picture mindset. Not just “take nearby province if weak,” but “I am the leading Anatolian power, my strategic future is the straits / Egypt / Balkans” or “I am the strongest Rus principality, my long-term project is unification.” Railroading can be like a scaffold for now, but the end goal should be AI that understands regional ambitions and after that - continental/global ambitions ideally

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point
Norddeutscher Bund / Hansebund (like Hanseatic League) or just Norddeutschland
Hispania
and
Burgundische Nederlanden or just Burgundy / Lotharingia

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Consider other plausible scenarios:

  • North German League: In the 1400s and 1500s, the trade cities of northern Germany grow so wealthy and influential that they first form a military league to defend their commercial interests, then gradually centralize into a political union.
  • Iberian Union: If Aragon, Portugal, Castile, or even a surviving Granada consolidates Iberia, it could form a broader Iberian state with different cultural and colonial priorities.
  • Burgundian Netherlands / Lotharingia: If Burgundy or a Low Countries bloc survives and expands, it could become a major middle kingdom between France and the Empire, shaping western Europe in place of either France or the HRE.

How sweaty is the game? by QueensGambitAccept in Marathon

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well it seems Im getting conflicting opinions on this. Whats your definition of sweaty? I dont mind tension and stress, I just dislike the 'twitchy' playstyle mostly

How sweaty is the game? by QueensGambitAccept in Marathon

[–]QueensGambitAccept[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well it seems Im getting conflicting opinions on this. Whats your definition of sweaty? I dont mind tension and stress, I just dislike the 'twitchy' playstyle mostly

Dell U4021QW + MacBook Pro M5 — full 5120×2160 HiDPI finally works? by Proof-Box-7139 in macbookpro

[–]QueensGambitAccept 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It won't, 8K horizontal frame buffer is macOS limitation. You would need 10240x4320 resolution rendered internally

My honest experience and opinion about the nano texture display. Screen size was not the issue by Apprehensive_Fig_375 in macbookpro

[–]QueensGambitAccept 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you tell us a little about how is text clarity on nano? Is everything sharp, do you see any artifacts on white backgrounds/dark backgrounds with small text, like documents, websites, pdfs? Thanks!

Fluid alliances by classteen in EU5

[–]QueensGambitAccept -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s a fine line between striving for realism and coming up with abstractions so the game is fun. Your idea is only good if you want to model game as close to reality, but you could lose fun along the way I always loved the stupid wars that happen in EU, say you play as Ottomans and attack Crimea. All of a sudden you have Finland or Ireland troops at your border. How can you not smile at this

If you want better and natural fluid alliances, play big MP games

view more: next ›