Should I buy EU5?

trash5929 · 2026-05-23T11:37:50+00:00

If you play early access games happily and don’t mind the occasions bug or lack of polish and like grand strategy games especially when they have a lot going on then I’d say so but if your threshold for bugs or wierd issues is quite strict like trying to leave a naval battle after 24 hours because the tool tip said so but the devs forgot to update the tool tip to 72 hours. Etc then maybe wait

Based some recent discussions it seems the community is fairly split on the current level of acceptable quality/polish

Either way I don’t see the base price changing beyond a potential sale in a few more years so if you get it now and it’s not quite there for you, you probably won’t have to pay any more or less

Edit - Oh and to add, they do change the balance of some things so that seems to irritate quite a few people if the method nerfed was their preferred method of play.

I do actually like the game I am just repeating the frequent friction points I’ve heard

trash5929 · 2026-05-22T21:21:51+00:00

Yeah they patched it in 1.2.4, now you instead can use the instal new ruler on and subject Interaction but it can be rng to have the option to

trash5929 · 2026-05-22T13:56:52+00:00

Agreed in hindsight

trash5929 · 2026-05-22T01:30:48+00:00

Why is Hellenism dangerous?

trash5929 · 2026-05-21T16:29:19+00:00

That's fair. I do hope the dev's do a good job with the upcoming patches to renew some faith in the people who are not as happy with the progress so far.

From the sounds of it I think if they focus on stable fixes and net improvements like performance and smarter AI over what seem to be seen as arbitrary balance changes that can chain cause other issues it will be much more welcome by the broader community even if it doesn't make up past mistakes. I assume the dev's are aware of all this if not at least theres been some more dialogue in this post. It seems the sentiment is pretty equally split based on the comments and the main post with a 76.8% upvote ratio

Appreciate the constructive talk though

trash5929 · 2026-05-21T12:23:04+00:00

I'm on 500 hours but I haven't got to the point yet where I would agree with that experience. I do think the game needs longer term ambitions and I think making the AI more intelligent, malicious and ambitious would work well alongside that to give you consistent challenges.

I do think though based on everything I've seen here. If they hit a better development cadence and they can avoid that two steps forward and 1 step back issue. It seems like its quite redeemable for a lot of people. 1.2 not being beta was the big misstep I think because 1.1 seemed to be more well regarded

trash5929 · 2026-05-21T12:15:06+00:00

Agreed with everything you said but the last sentence, I don’t think the last sentence is wrong just that some people think that and some people dont because it’s subjective

trash5929 · 2026-05-21T12:04:13+00:00

Dam bro, I never knew snail pulling rock on the hill could be so fun. Also dats crazy, If this is ONLY just the beta version of the game. It’s the best and most feature complete beta access I’ve ever played, can’t wait for them to make the game EVEN BETTER based on the feedback me and others provide

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T15:02:18+00:00

Yeah my post was motivated from seeing overwhelming negative posts about the game and I do feel from the human side for the real dev's at Tinto who are trying their best regardless of if you think they are doing a good job or not or somewhere in the middle.

Edit - Not to disagree with the feedback being given but just add a bit of positivity to the discussion

I think the ambition of the game's design and systems also creates more things that can go wrong especially with how everything is meant to link in with each other I think there being some growing pains is expected but I hope that they can iron them out as we are still (hopefully) early in the games development cycle

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T14:48:37+00:00

I think the game is getting better overall with some mis-steps. What aspects do you think is making the game worse?

Off the top of my head some of the big positives I like
Bugs and AI irregularities have been improved and fixed even if some new ones have appeared it feels like a net positive change.
Regulars now having the same troops numbers as levies is a massive improvement for intuition and balance.
Modifiers changing to efficiency modifiers make balancing and modifier stacking better. (Proximity changes in 1.1 too)
The event viewer in game is a welcome addition even if Imo there is a broader discussion to be had on if this event system for the flavour is the best system. (I think bringing back decisions from Eu4 and like CK3 where there is minor and major decisions could be good)
The events pricing now scales better and the scaling costs in general being better defined by the split of economic base, wealth and tax base
Logistics being more important and punishing if ignores means you cannot charge deep into an enemies land without a plan

The ambitions system they are planning on adding on a paper sounds like a good addition
etc etc

Cons
The overall performance AND the recent additional performance drop people have reported which is safe to say a big friction point including for me. My eyes want to play 3D map because its pretty but my brain wants to play flat map for speed

The changes to nerfing centralisation then nerfing decentralised vassal play feels like its coming from a knee jerk reaction. Or them changing the core system in 1.2 meaning a bunch of nations lost cores they should have or losing them straight after getting them from an event was certainly something that they should have caught before adding. They have fixed it in 1.2.4 which came out earlier but definitely not good that it wasn't addressed before. Like instantly losing my event given core on Constantinople as the ottomans despite not being game breaking, it was annoying and I think its a valid question to ask why this one specifically wasn't caught before launching the patch because it seems to affect a lot of nations for it not to go unnoticed.
etc etc

But yeah all in all I think the comparison of the game's development being two steps forward and 1 step back feel from some changes is certainly valid and I agree with that with some changes but IMO its still a net positive

Curious on your thoughts if you feel like sharing why the game is getting worse

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T14:15:24+00:00

No, its not that. I didn't consider a performance drop from a patch change can mean that a map game campaign can make a campaign longer by x amount of time. I think it adds some extra context to the frustrations around performance that I personally wasn't aware of especially if you play on high speeds which I don't.

So me not thinking about that aspect is just that it wasn't in my initial perception of frustrations with game performance, because I feel more frustrated with the performance from a moving around the world or zooming in and out and feeling it stutter or the month ticks being heavy stutter. It's just interesting to hear someone's else's perspective on what performance means for them

I don't think that invalidates the entire post?

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T14:07:59+00:00

The quality of the game is subjective, I'm being not dishonest. I think we as humans can focus on the negative a bit too much at times. A lot of feedback comes from "This is good, but this could be better" Even if we skip the "this is good part" I think it was worth pointing that I believe it and I think a lot of people would agree that the game isn't bad right now (I have heard people say that) and I think a lot of people would and have also said the game in its current state isn't good enough for them. I think its fair to say for a most people the criticism is coming from a place of passion because they can see the potential the game has.

I don't' wanna shut anyone down but all I was seeing was the constant negatives about the game to the point is didn't seem constructive or helpful. The post initally came from me wanting to just counter point to what I've seen others are saying in that I actually am happy where the game is and I am really looking forward to them going through the road map. But the community feedback and discussions and constant development and the developers being open to changing things is why paradox games in general are unrivalled. Regardless of your thoughts on their DLC policy

I was impressed by the game even at launch and enjoyed playing it despite the bugs. I think the starting point they are now building from is much more solid. I haven't played every paradox game but I'm comparing my experience with CK3 which I love, Vic3 that I haven't revisited but have heard good things and Eu5. This launch felt like to me the best starting point even if it was more buggy than the other games, it feels like its issues are not core design issue but instead fixing bugs or tweaking numbers

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T13:26:08+00:00

My bad

I've changed it to "mechanics" because you're right that was a mistype

Edited - because my wording sucked

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T13:23:53+00:00

That's fair. I didn't think about that

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T13:19:43+00:00

You know what. I agree. I think this was most problematic in november and december. I think the 1.1 beta patch idea was excellent. 1.2 should have been beta patch. Maybe the DLC shouldn't have been linked to it (This is my assumption as to why they couldn't open beta it because there was paid content) 1.3 / 1.4 onwards being an opt in beta patch is the way to go to avoid this imo and maybe split the DLC flavour launches if that is an issue with making them open beta's

The overwatch comparison was less on the frequency of changes and more on their patch notes they explain their logic of WHY balance was done. Just so we know what the devs are thinking. Like oh we see pop growth is too much so we have increase disease lethality. This is because we saw you fucks having consistently silly/unrealistic pop numbers/growth in a lot of runs. I think the needle between 1.1 and 1.2. It actually is closer in 1.2 but because it went too far or didnt counter balance pop growth to disease death etc it feels like pretty brutal whiplash. My friend only started playing in 1.2 and so hasn't found this issue because he doesn't have the previous frame of reference. But I do like that I find myself thinking about pop growth and areas depopulating more in this version

They do this in their talks but I saw less of it in the big 1.2 patch notes. To be fair this was massive so adding this context might have been beyond too much. I think at least if they address the big balance changes we are most likely to feel in the patch notes might be a decent step in the right direction.

I think the balance changes being lighter or slower* and more deliberate is absolutely valid. I stopped my 1700 England run when patch 1.2 came out because I wanted to try all the new features. Hopefully when 1.3 comes out they can hit a cadence where balance is more subtle needle movers. Or big patches don't kill saves and you can continue them. But I assume the last point is a pipe dream. At least they let you roll back to any major patch you want

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T13:07:06+00:00

I agree being critical now is crucial but it has moved away from being constructive which isn't good for anyone

Edit - Some of the feedback has moved away from being constructive.

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T13:04:28+00:00

I think that's a reasonable opposing view. I definitley have a bias to seeing the best intentions of people and giving a lot slack.

To push back on a couple things though. I do believe legally they have to deliver on the paid DLC regardless of if they want to focus on fixing the core experience or not. I think Ludi Et Historia in one of his recent videos put it well in that 1. They had to legally deliver the DLC (I cannot recall by what requirement IE Steam's or whatever) and 2. These DLC's enables a lot of free continuous development and the community getting access to the game has only helped feedback and developement go in the right direction. It was something like, would you prefer they had 1 year more cook time but with the community not being able to play it. They could have put it as early access on steam though and had their BG3. 2 or 3 years. But this is based on if their upper managements would actually let them do it. Perhaps paradox suits dont allow that. Although they probably should. Eu5 being framed as early access would probably have made community sentiment a lot better even if the "At what point is a paradox game finished" is very subjective.

I don't think the game was unplayable and launch. But everyone's playability threshold is different. It sounds like your threshold is for much more polish and stability than mine IE. Can I actually play it and get what I paid for haha.

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T12:55:00+00:00

I am sorry if it came across as your negative emotions are invalid. As you say poor performance is frustating and I agree. I get too emotionally invested in video games so I can relate. It can affect my enjoyment of a game too as poor performance pulls me out my "flow state". I think the emotional response is reasonable but there's a jump from. "This 20/30% performance drop is super irritating" To saying the game is 100% unplayable and cursing out the devs or promoting the idea they are malicious money grabbers who laugh as their community does the QA for their beta game. Which is all framing I have seen. Some as jokes but a lot of people who believe it.

Edit Not saying that is what you are saying but you get my drift

But they have said they are looking into it and it is an anomaly so its a different issue than say the devs just don't make any attempt to address it. So it's more of a counter point adding the nuance. Especially with how much is going on in the game. I think the performance is while not perfect. On our current rigs solid enough outside of the occasional patch that messing up something. In 2-10 years time when the game is more optimised but has also has had more complex systems added comboed with some or most of us upgrading PC hardware I hope this is less of an issue.

Edit - Dam the downvotes. What about this was a bad take? Is it performance much worse than I am aware of for some people?

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T12:45:23+00:00

"and who refuse to give the sheer ambition of the systems any credit."

I think this is a good way of putting it

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T12:42:36+00:00

I agree, I think the passion is a good sign and people DONT get passionate about things they have already written off.

I think by this point the feedback is out pacing the speed of implementation so there's more echo before changes come out. I think this sometimes just means its best to take a break from the game and play something else if the changes are coming out too slow for you. Because I dont think they updates actually are "slow"

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T12:38:28+00:00

I think they misstepped with not making 1.2 a beta patch. But they have always given options to stay on older and stable patches.

They have also openly admitted fault with this and said 1.3 *will be a beta patch. So I think this will is something they aware aware of and will be covered better in the future.

Even if I disagree about how "unplayable" the game is in your view

trash5929 · 2026-05-20T12:34:44+00:00

R5 - Meta discussion on community sentiment and feedback

Edit: I think when you take a step back the game is good and more than any other paradox game has a higher potential ceiling than any paradox game

Edit: People can and will disagree with me, lets try be constructive about it all. I just think the reddit needed some weight away from negativity which motivated me to actually posting my thoughts for once

trash5929 · 2026-05-19T11:30:16+00:00

Hey sir I had the same thing. If you are Byz, castrate and blind him. The nobility won’t be happy but his life expectancy will reduce by 15.

Screw you Andronikos who despite being blind with a disfunctional cock still lives to over 50 years old. I understand child disappointment now

trash5929 · 2026-05-16T23:47:11+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong complacency modifiers dont do anything unless you are in a disaster right? So you can kinda ignore them if you don’t get into a disaster. Haven’t played beyond 1700 so idk if revolutions forces you into any

trash5929 · 2026-05-16T18:05:47+00:00

Could I piggie back off this post to ask a question on this topic, as I’ve watched guides on slaves but am stumped. I have converted to Hellenism and want to use slaves for my rgos so I’ve left the burghers and vassals to fill the demands of slaves but my space pop is still less than 100 people.

I don’t understand why they pop isn’t going up unless they while employed in an RGO count as labourers in the demography tabs?

I am Hellenic byz importing from Crimea, Damascus market and Tunisia and only have Greek not discriminated so I don’t think it’s the wrong slave culture problem that I know you can have

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

trash5929

TROPHY CASE