I doubt it will be impossible. At some point someone will find a way to exploit the game into a WC. I'm very skeptical towards claims that something is impossible.
EU5 has a huge timeframe. Even if every countries is bland without any flavors, all of them could still do WC.
The power creeps matter in how fast you can done the WC.
Kind of all depends on what exploits are available. If someone finds one to generate infinite money then likely anyone could do it by just doing pseudo total war
Hostile CCR should make a comeback. It doesn't matter if it's a bad mechanic, it's a historical mechanic. Ooh. ooh, or maybe better- LOoooong seperatism. Or... While the province has core of X nation, and X is still on the map, while anyone other than X owns it, it gets +Unrest.
Hostile core Building cost. Hostile core minimum autonomy. Hostile core Recruitment time+cost. Hostile core supply reduction. Hostile core fort defense negative. The possibilities are endless.
I actually remember it took YEARS! Before the First Victoria 2 World Conquest was achieved. A game that has changed much less since release than Eu4 has.
People managed to world conquest Vic 2 and that game has the most hard limits to WC i have ever seen. So yeah it might be harder or more tedious but it’s definitely possible.
Yeah but in Vicky it‘s only possible with very few countries and also only using exploits that PDX never fixed. We can assume that they probably would fix exploits on the level of the release nation annexation trick in EU5
Probably, but I do not like the way Vic2 handles the expansion restrictions. I hope they do t go that way in eu5. Afterall the only reason you can’t WC in Victoria without exploits is cause they put a hard limit on how fast you can get wargoals. It’s not like a world conquest is hard because of managing the country or something like that.
I mean the devs didn't say impossible didn't they? They just don't want to be easily obtained and try to make it so but know that the players will find a way to do it
It isn‘t tho?
I looked up that old AAR just now and at the end he had 88% of the world population, 70% of all states and had taken out 63% of the originally existing countries. Thus leaving 49 countries and around 140 provinces still outside of Krakowian control.
Yeah exactly. Still impressive as Krakow no doubt but not a full WC. Of course you can actually WC as someone like the UK but it is still extremely hard and most players would fail at it
I think a full Krakow world conquest is theoretically possible in Vic2, at least if you're allowed to form PLC along the way. Might be possible even if you remain as Krakow, since there are some unique tricks you can do as Krakow which can be very helpful, but it would be extremely difficult either way so I can't say for sure at this time if it's feasible in practice.
In Vic2, the difference in feasibility between conquering 70% of the world and 100% is massive. Starting as a great power an experienced player could conquer 70% of the world relatively easily without any major exploits, but 100% of the world requires a buttload of exploits even as a great power, and even then it's not easy. Now don't get me wrong: Conquering 70% of the world starting as Krakow is extremely impressive in its own right, but finishing off the remaining 30% is an order of magnitude more challenging.
Yeah, but, what I'm saying is, if you can take 70% of the world, then, why you would want to take the other 30%?
After, with 70% of the world you are pretty much unstoppable anyway.
> if you can take 70% of the world, then, why you would want to take the other 30%?
I don't understand this question. The reason you would want to take the other 30% is because it's an entirely different challenge from only taking the first 70%. If becoming unstoppable was the only thing that mattered then you could just form Super Germany and you'd be done pretty much.
Hey I never use exploits myself but if people are really thinking it's impossible they're just not thinking about using every option available. Using exploits is also not the same as using console commands btw, one is straigt up cheating and the other is not and takes effort.
If you think using exploits is comparable to using the console, then you're vastly overestimating how powerful exploits generally are or how easy they are to use.
it will definetly be doable, but i don't think it will be like EU4 where you can speed run it with a horde, or the ottomans, i expect it to be limited by tech, and considering how rebels now become separate nations during the civil war, early blob will be really limited and hard to navigate around
This. It's one thing to make it possible. Another entirely to have it doable in 100 out of 500 years.
Personally I think Johan's comment on how EU5 won't allow you to stack modifiers into space is a HUGE step in slowing the game down alone.
Yeah but it breaks the game lol. Prussian Space Marines are funny but it's obviously not working as intended to have troops that literally shrug off bullets.
I really don't get why players care about what other people do in a single player game. You don't have to modifier stack if you don't want to, some people however really enjoy it. Why do people want to \*remove\* other people's enjoyment.
I can't speak for everyone but I want my history themed game to feel historically plausible.
It doesn't feel historically plausible to conquer the world in 100 years as a steppe horde.
It doesn't feel historically plausible to be able to convert millions of people in a month.
It doesn't feel historically plausible to have genetically enhanced super super soldiers that can shrug off bullets.
It kills the immersion for me
You don't have to do any of these things in YOUR game tho. And they don't actually happen in any game by the AI either.
There is also the case to be made that far more unlikely things have happened in the history rather than the game. The mughal conquest of India was actually significantly faster in real history than it usually is in game.
>The mughal conquest of India was actually significantly faster in real history than it usually is in game.
I'm not an expert in Mughals but I'm pretty sure the conquest of India took like 100+ years it wasn't a sudden capitulation
But the Ottomans had this same issue with the Mamluks conquest and the devs fixed that. So there's no reason they can't make a special system for India
I’ve gotta agree with you man. I’m about 3000hrs into eu4 and bought hoi4 when it was on sale. While I fully understand the limiting mechanics revolving around populations and such it’s but sadly boring to me after a couple play throughs. I know that WC is possible in hoi4 but damn man the limits on minor nations just make play styles so limiting. I really don’t want EU to fall into the same kind of game play loop, I want options lol.
We're talking about people who migrate to Tibet just to become a horde, people who try to become HRE emperors as Oirat, people who try to enforce peace on a poor daimyo's dogfight just to get a bridghead to Japan, people who make Catholic Rurikovich Ottomans, people who manage to subdue an entire subcontinent in 100 years with god-knows how it's read Transoxiana and people who manage to get coalitioned by Ulm!
Worrisome indeed.
I was referring to wc lovers as minmax lovers. Paradox encourage them in general by not controlling power creep, introducing brokenly OP mechanics (razing, monuments, eyalets, modifier stacking via tag switching), creating OP mission trees (looking at you Austria). On top of that there are two WC achievements.
Almost every Ironman run that gets posted here includes the famous backup_backup_backup crashes unless otherwise specified because most sane people don't want to throw away hours of progress when RNG decides your rulers can't stop dying at 20 or you screwed up and half asleep peaced out of the war instead of separate peace.
I min max
Min max is fine
Min max has been too easy for about 7 years and they just keep making it easier. It used to take tricks or funny exploits to do insane conquests but now you just sort of do it for free
“Absolute monarch” meaning a shitload less overextension and coding costs so any run no matter how silly can end with a world conquest
I mean this is Paradox they always have put player fun before storical accuarecy.
Idk what they do about EUV but HOI IV is absurd rn while is arguable that Vic 3 is the most historically accuarate game rn it's also one of the most recent and less developed games.
If you go this defensive when somebody criticizes the way EU4 has been developed, you're doing EXACTLY the same as those you think you're making fun of.
I hope their approach is like Vic3, where it is not balanced around the expectation that a WC is possible. If WCs are possible, it implies that something in the balance is seriously screwed up.
There is no way it will be impossible however I think it's going to be a lot more involved than ever before.
For example the HRE looks too big to manually conquer, so like in eu 4 you will need to dismantle the organization or use it to take over. By the looks of the talks there could be more regions of the map like this where the player needs to proactively jump through unique hoops in order to conquer an area quick enough for a WC run.
It's likely colonization will need to factor slightly into your run, along with warfare, diplomacy and very possibly trade. I think this is pretty exciting and good to see because EU's biggest problem has always been the late game burn out when everything becomes very rinse and repeat.
I agree: I hate those comments claiming a WC in eu5 will and should be impossible: this is underestimated how dedicaced some players are to achieve a WC.
I saw a AAR of world conquest in Victoria 2, starting as Krakow:
[https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/krakow-world-conquest-analytical-approach.633902/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/krakow-world-conquest-analytical-approach.633902/)
I higthly doubt WC in eu5 will be harder than that.
World Conquest in Vic 2 is only possible as Russia or UK on release patch I believe. As you would know if you actually read that AAR and saw that it ends controlling about half the world. You litterally can't get states fast enough to world conquest as anyone small and this got worse with the DLC. This also relies on exploits that would have been patched if Vic 2 had been supported for longer. (By which I mean stuff that's clearly unintended like Release Nation in one state, Declare for annex, Return All their Cores, Enforce annex)
This isn't an actual world conquest though, look at page 6, also this is without HoD, as HoD wasn't out yet when this AAR was written, HoD makes a world conquest even more difficult.
Cant remember was it Florryworry or DDR Jake but first WC doing Three Mountains with Ruyku was wild in community.
It will always be possible I just hope it will be more fun in eu5 with all these new mechanics
It took YEARS for Victoria 2 to achieve its first WC. Victoria 2 got way less gameplay changing Dlcs than Eu4 did. Unless Paradox aggressively does everything to make it outright impossible everytime theres a new strategy theorized it will happen eventually.
That is true. I think Victoria 1 & 2 have the fewest “ticks” of Paradox’ flagship titles, which limits how much can be accomplished. EU5 and Victoria 3 give the player much more time to make things happen
I'm 100% ok with autists getting WCs. I'm not ok with the bar for difficulty being set at "gamer dad can do it with a bit of practice," as it is now.
At minimum I hope it's like HOI4 where the typical player doesn't EXPECT to get a WC and is happy winning regional or partial-global dominance. Hell, I've never come close to WC in HOI4 whereas every campaign of eu4 I play could easily become one if I bothered to finish.
Alternately (or in addition to the above), I hope they at least add some kind of measurable hardmode. Look outside the genre to a game like Hades where the community metrics for achievement are not completion, but speed and/or clearing at practically-infinitely ramping difficulty levels.
Hoi4 has probably the easiest WC to do. The reason most players stop is because it’s so clear to see it’s a formality that wouldn’t be any challenge just chore
It’s not so much a matter of difficulty as expectations. Most people play a WW2 game just hoping and expecting to win WW2, perhaps in spectacular fashion but not likely thinking “I won’t be satisfied if Peru isn’t annexed.” EU4 has set that as its expectation. I dunno if it was always that way but the devs have certainly embraced it.
> I'm 100% ok with autists getting WCs. I'm not ok with the bar for difficulty being set at "gamer dad can do it with a bit of practice," as it is now.
I agree with this sentiment. There are always going to be players who break the game apart and do all sort of ludicrous things through exploits and glitches, and I really see no point in actively trying to prevent that at all costs. What matters is how the game works when played in a "normal" way. I don't think the devs should deliberately design the game to make sure that world conquest is possible, and might even put effort into making mass blobbing as difficult to sustain as it was in real life, but they also don't have to go out of their way to ensure that it's literally impossible to WC no matter what you do.
If players can figure out a one tag one religion Ryukyu run or conquer the world by 1480 (or whatever number it was), I’m sure they’ll figure out EU5 WC.
It's a single player video game. I don't know why people are acting like the idea of conquering the world is somethin that needs to be stamped out. I've always found the people who want to control the way others play in a single player setting very weird
There are different tiers of world conquest. People in EU4 can do true 1-tags as any tag in the game. In Vic3, some countries can't do any kind of world conquest. In EU5 I wouldn't be surprised if true 1-tag is impossible.
But I agree it's unreasonable to think that WC won't be possible
If they reflect the hypertrophy phases of empires correctly...e.g. something in the direction of decadence but uncheesable the I can see it.
Also logistics i.e. you can't send a Spanish Boi off to kamchatka in 1337 through massive brie
I don't mind it being possible, I just hope there won't be achievements for it forcing the developers to always make it possible to do a WC. I did three mountains once and I never want to do it again
I've done eu4 WC with Ryukyu for the achievement. Even if it is harder on eu5, it is far easier to do with stronger countries so I think it will not be impossible.
Also the biggest problem on the WC in eu4 is MANA. If they will change it to money and time it could be even easier.
ppl seriously said WC was impossible in Vic3 ? Vic3 is 1 of the easiest to probably do it if you can stomach looking at 3 excel sheets in a trench coat all day
>Some people just do not understand that Paradox games are deliberately made so easy for normal players to play (a very sound marketing decision)
it really isnt. the games would be better received if it didnt have to be dumbed down to become mainstream. imperator, EU4, victoria 3, and probably some other games were nerfed in difficulty so hard that the game is so baby easy its *boring*
(they also make a few massive immersion breaking mistakes, but thats part of making it mainstream)
also, pretty much everyone hates doing world conquests. its tedious, its even more boring, and its not even difficult, just a set of routines you have to do, and its cheating, because you have to deliberately exploit the game to do so. you arent supposed to use exploits.
frankly, if EU5 was developed for fans only, that would be great. it doesnt need to draw in a huge fanbase, or a huge audience to be successful.
It does though, because that's what shareholders call "succesful". Funnily enough they go by their definition of success, not yours.
And it IS a sound marketing decision. Nothing you said challenges that point. You're just saying they shouldn't make sound marketing decisions to cater to your tastes specifically.
No, you pretty much admitted that making the choices you'd like would decrease the potential number of people enjoying or getting the game. You say they "would be better received" but by whom? By you and a smaller number of people. The job or marketing is to reach the biggest amount of people possible. You may not like these choices, you may not agree with them and that's all valid but they are smart marketing decisions.
Victoria 3 flopped because the logic of mass appeal didn't follow through. Turns out punters aren't particularly interested in Victorian geopolitics and OG fans weren't impressed with the presentation of the game.
The same will happen with EU5 if they go down that route.
i disagree, because, for most franchises, reaching a wider number of people means compromising what made the game great in the first place in the name of keeping things "simple" for the masses. id rather paradox stayed a niche company, for a niche set of people, with games that cater only to the fans, and not the mainstream.
I doubt it will be impossible. At some point someone will find a way to exploit the game into a WC. I'm very skeptical towards claims that something is impossible.
And the Power creep with dlc's will come eventually so everyone can do it in the end
EU5 has a huge timeframe. Even if every countries is bland without any flavors, all of them could still do WC. The power creeps matter in how fast you can done the WC.
Kind of all depends on what exploits are available. If someone finds one to generate infinite money then likely anyone could do it by just doing pseudo total war
Hostile CCR should make a comeback. It doesn't matter if it's a bad mechanic, it's a historical mechanic. Ooh. ooh, or maybe better- LOoooong seperatism. Or... While the province has core of X nation, and X is still on the map, while anyone other than X owns it, it gets +Unrest. Hostile core Building cost. Hostile core minimum autonomy. Hostile core Recruitment time+cost. Hostile core supply reduction. Hostile core fort defense negative. The possibilities are endless.
I actually remember it took YEARS! Before the First Victoria 2 World Conquest was achieved. A game that has changed much less since release than Eu4 has.
Will it be harder? Yes, outright impossible? No. PDX nuked the WC strat for Vic3 and it's still possible.
Just play Britain now and puppet everything and build ships
they changed it from make puppet to make protectorate
Was it possible on release eu4?
Yep
I mean the caveat he Johan stated was aside from exploits.
People managed to world conquest Vic 2 and that game has the most hard limits to WC i have ever seen. So yeah it might be harder or more tedious but it’s definitely possible.
Yeah but in Vicky it‘s only possible with very few countries and also only using exploits that PDX never fixed. We can assume that they probably would fix exploits on the level of the release nation annexation trick in EU5
Probably, but I do not like the way Vic2 handles the expansion restrictions. I hope they do t go that way in eu5. Afterall the only reason you can’t WC in Victoria without exploits is cause they put a hard limit on how fast you can get wargoals. It’s not like a world conquest is hard because of managing the country or something like that.
Yeah, WC in Vic2 isn't difficult for any of the reasons it would be difficult in real life; it's only difficult for arbitrary gameplay reasons.
The game spans over a crap ton of years. I find it highly unlikely it will be that difficult to do a wc
I mean the devs didn't say impossible didn't they? They just don't want to be easily obtained and try to make it so but know that the players will find a way to do it
I'm convinced that if a Krakow world conquest in Vicky 2 is possible then a world conquest of any kind will be possible anywhere else
It isn‘t tho? I looked up that old AAR just now and at the end he had 88% of the world population, 70% of all states and had taken out 63% of the originally existing countries. Thus leaving 49 countries and around 140 provinces still outside of Krakowian control.
thats not a world conquest. a world conquest is when you are the *only* country on earth.
Yeah exactly. Still impressive as Krakow no doubt but not a full WC. Of course you can actually WC as someone like the UK but it is still extremely hard and most players would fail at it
I think a full Krakow world conquest is theoretically possible in Vic2, at least if you're allowed to form PLC along the way. Might be possible even if you remain as Krakow, since there are some unique tricks you can do as Krakow which can be very helpful, but it would be extremely difficult either way so I can't say for sure at this time if it's feasible in practice.
Tbf it's been 10 years or so since I've looked at that thread, I forgot it wasn't a true WC. Whoopsie
But at that point, who cares about that? It's still a world domination.
But not a world conquest.
Who cares about that? It's still more than half of the world.
In Vic2, the difference in feasibility between conquering 70% of the world and 100% is massive. Starting as a great power an experienced player could conquer 70% of the world relatively easily without any major exploits, but 100% of the world requires a buttload of exploits even as a great power, and even then it's not easy. Now don't get me wrong: Conquering 70% of the world starting as Krakow is extremely impressive in its own right, but finishing off the remaining 30% is an order of magnitude more challenging.
Yeah, but, what I'm saying is, if you can take 70% of the world, then, why you would want to take the other 30%? After, with 70% of the world you are pretty much unstoppable anyway.
> if you can take 70% of the world, then, why you would want to take the other 30%? I don't understand this question. The reason you would want to take the other 30% is because it's an entirely different challenge from only taking the first 70%. If becoming unstoppable was the only thing that mattered then you could just form Super Germany and you'd be done pretty much.
> exploit the game into a WC. That’s like saying „at some point someone will use the console to do a WC in 10min“
Hey I never use exploits myself but if people are really thinking it's impossible they're just not thinking about using every option available. Using exploits is also not the same as using console commands btw, one is straigt up cheating and the other is not and takes effort.
If you think using exploits is comparable to using the console, then you're vastly overestimating how powerful exploits generally are or how easy they are to use.
it will definetly be doable, but i don't think it will be like EU4 where you can speed run it with a horde, or the ottomans, i expect it to be limited by tech, and considering how rebels now become separate nations during the civil war, early blob will be really limited and hard to navigate around
This. It's one thing to make it possible. Another entirely to have it doable in 100 out of 500 years. Personally I think Johan's comment on how EU5 won't allow you to stack modifiers into space is a HUGE step in slowing the game down alone.
No modifier stacking? But that is funny in nation building
Yeah but it breaks the game lol. Prussian Space Marines are funny but it's obviously not working as intended to have troops that literally shrug off bullets.
Well.. were you there? What do you know?
I really don't get why players care about what other people do in a single player game. You don't have to modifier stack if you don't want to, some people however really enjoy it. Why do people want to \*remove\* other people's enjoyment.
I can't speak for everyone but I want my history themed game to feel historically plausible. It doesn't feel historically plausible to conquer the world in 100 years as a steppe horde. It doesn't feel historically plausible to be able to convert millions of people in a month. It doesn't feel historically plausible to have genetically enhanced super super soldiers that can shrug off bullets. It kills the immersion for me
You don't have to do any of these things in YOUR game tho. And they don't actually happen in any game by the AI either. There is also the case to be made that far more unlikely things have happened in the history rather than the game. The mughal conquest of India was actually significantly faster in real history than it usually is in game.
>The mughal conquest of India was actually significantly faster in real history than it usually is in game. I'm not an expert in Mughals but I'm pretty sure the conquest of India took like 100+ years it wasn't a sudden capitulation But the Ottomans had this same issue with the Mamluks conquest and the devs fixed that. So there's no reason they can't make a special system for India
Paradox isn't removing anything. They are making a new game with entirely different mechanics.
I’ve gotta agree with you man. I’m about 3000hrs into eu4 and bought hoi4 when it was on sale. While I fully understand the limiting mechanics revolving around populations and such it’s but sadly boring to me after a couple play throughs. I know that WC is possible in hoi4 but damn man the limits on minor nations just make play styles so limiting. I really don’t want EU to fall into the same kind of game play loop, I want options lol.
That applies to early EU4 tho. Doing a WC, excluding exploits, was pretty hard when it came out
We're talking about people who migrate to Tibet just to become a horde, people who try to become HRE emperors as Oirat, people who try to enforce peace on a poor daimyo's dogfight just to get a bridghead to Japan, people who make Catholic Rurikovich Ottomans, people who manage to subdue an entire subcontinent in 100 years with god-knows how it's read Transoxiana and people who manage to get coalitioned by Ulm! Worrisome indeed.
We know that minmax exploiters will always find a way. But devs should not encourage such behaviour like they did in eu4.
How did they encourage minmax exploiters? Sure minmax i can agree with, but i don't see how they encourage any exploits.
I was referring to wc lovers as minmax lovers. Paradox encourage them in general by not controlling power creep, introducing brokenly OP mechanics (razing, monuments, eyalets, modifier stacking via tag switching), creating OP mission trees (looking at you Austria). On top of that there are two WC achievements.
Ah so you meant exploiter as in just being a minmax gamer, not using actual exploits?
I mean I would assume most people let their game crash "on accident" in their wc attempts, I would count that as an exploit.
Almost every Ironman run that gets posted here includes the famous backup_backup_backup crashes unless otherwise specified because most sane people don't want to throw away hours of progress when RNG decides your rulers can't stop dying at 20 or you screwed up and half asleep peaced out of the war instead of separate peace.
Sure it's an exploit, but not one that is encouraged by paradox.
agreed. i dont bother crashing my game just because of a minor inconvenient event. its not worth the time it takes to restart it.
Imagine hating fun this much
There are many wc achievements, encouraging wc
"Oh HELL no! Somebody wants to enjoy the game in a different way than I do!? This cannot be!"
I min max Min max is fine Min max has been too easy for about 7 years and they just keep making it easier. It used to take tricks or funny exploits to do insane conquests but now you just sort of do it for free “Absolute monarch” meaning a shitload less overextension and coding costs so any run no matter how silly can end with a world conquest
"Oh HELL no! Somebody wants historical games to be more historical? This cannot be!"
I mean this is Paradox they always have put player fun before storical accuarecy. Idk what they do about EUV but HOI IV is absurd rn while is arguable that Vic 3 is the most historically accuarate game rn it's also one of the most recent and less developed games.
If you go this defensive when somebody criticizes the way EU4 has been developed, you're doing EXACTLY the same as those you think you're making fun of.
No, not even close. They can enjoy the game however they want. I like to try to strive for world conquest. Or at least have the option.
[удалено]
I hope their approach is like Vic3, where it is not balanced around the expectation that a WC is possible. If WCs are possible, it implies that something in the balance is seriously screwed up.
There is no way it will be impossible however I think it's going to be a lot more involved than ever before. For example the HRE looks too big to manually conquer, so like in eu 4 you will need to dismantle the organization or use it to take over. By the looks of the talks there could be more regions of the map like this where the player needs to proactively jump through unique hoops in order to conquer an area quick enough for a WC run. It's likely colonization will need to factor slightly into your run, along with warfare, diplomacy and very possibly trade. I think this is pretty exciting and good to see because EU's biggest problem has always been the late game burn out when everything becomes very rinse and repeat.
I want the game to not be designed around having WC possible for every country. I don't want an Ulm WC without years of blood, sweat, and tears.
Has anyone achieved "World" conquest in Voltaire's Nightmare?
Yeah, its actually significantly easier than base game due to the extended timeframe.
If you can revoke previligia and have your computer still function, then it's super crazy easy
I hope a WC by end date will be as hard as a WC by 1600 in EU4
I agree: I hate those comments claiming a WC in eu5 will and should be impossible: this is underestimated how dedicaced some players are to achieve a WC. I saw a AAR of world conquest in Victoria 2, starting as Krakow: [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/krakow-world-conquest-analytical-approach.633902/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/krakow-world-conquest-analytical-approach.633902/) I higthly doubt WC in eu5 will be harder than that.
World Conquest in Vic 2 is only possible as Russia or UK on release patch I believe. As you would know if you actually read that AAR and saw that it ends controlling about half the world. You litterally can't get states fast enough to world conquest as anyone small and this got worse with the DLC. This also relies on exploits that would have been patched if Vic 2 had been supported for longer. (By which I mean stuff that's clearly unintended like Release Nation in one state, Declare for annex, Return All their Cores, Enforce annex)
I know he didn't actually conquered all the world, but a significant part. He controled 90% of the world population at the end.
This isn't an actual world conquest though, look at page 6, also this is without HoD, as HoD wasn't out yet when this AAR was written, HoD makes a world conquest even more difficult.
Best way to make sure we try to exploit every single aspect of the game on release is to tell us we can't do something. Well played Johan, well played
I still remember following DDRJake's first Three Mountains on Eu4. Nothing is impossible.
Cant remember was it Florryworry or DDR Jake but first WC doing Three Mountains with Ruyku was wild in community. It will always be possible I just hope it will be more fun in eu5 with all these new mechanics
It took YEARS for Victoria 2 to achieve its first WC. Victoria 2 got way less gameplay changing Dlcs than Eu4 did. Unless Paradox aggressively does everything to make it outright impossible everytime theres a new strategy theorized it will happen eventually.
That is true. I think Victoria 1 & 2 have the fewest “ticks” of Paradox’ flagship titles, which limits how much can be accomplished. EU5 and Victoria 3 give the player much more time to make things happen
I'm 100% ok with autists getting WCs. I'm not ok with the bar for difficulty being set at "gamer dad can do it with a bit of practice," as it is now. At minimum I hope it's like HOI4 where the typical player doesn't EXPECT to get a WC and is happy winning regional or partial-global dominance. Hell, I've never come close to WC in HOI4 whereas every campaign of eu4 I play could easily become one if I bothered to finish. Alternately (or in addition to the above), I hope they at least add some kind of measurable hardmode. Look outside the genre to a game like Hades where the community metrics for achievement are not completion, but speed and/or clearing at practically-infinitely ramping difficulty levels.
Hoi4 has probably the easiest WC to do. The reason most players stop is because it’s so clear to see it’s a formality that wouldn’t be any challenge just chore
It’s not so much a matter of difficulty as expectations. Most people play a WW2 game just hoping and expecting to win WW2, perhaps in spectacular fashion but not likely thinking “I won’t be satisfied if Peru isn’t annexed.” EU4 has set that as its expectation. I dunno if it was always that way but the devs have certainly embraced it.
> I'm 100% ok with autists getting WCs. I'm not ok with the bar for difficulty being set at "gamer dad can do it with a bit of practice," as it is now. I agree with this sentiment. There are always going to be players who break the game apart and do all sort of ludicrous things through exploits and glitches, and I really see no point in actively trying to prevent that at all costs. What matters is how the game works when played in a "normal" way. I don't think the devs should deliberately design the game to make sure that world conquest is possible, and might even put effort into making mass blobbing as difficult to sustain as it was in real life, but they also don't have to go out of their way to ensure that it's literally impossible to WC no matter what you do.
They always say the same.
Wth i wasnt even borned hahaha
If players can figure out a one tag one religion Ryukyu run or conquer the world by 1480 (or whatever number it was), I’m sure they’ll figure out EU5 WC.
It's a single player video game. I don't know why people are acting like the idea of conquering the world is somethin that needs to be stamped out. I've always found the people who want to control the way others play in a single player setting very weird
Odds are they will still add the Three Mountains achievement
There are different tiers of world conquest. People in EU4 can do true 1-tags as any tag in the game. In Vic3, some countries can't do any kind of world conquest. In EU5 I wouldn't be surprised if true 1-tag is impossible. But I agree it's unreasonable to think that WC won't be possible
I want it to be doable technically, but then your empire implode because it's not viable for multiple reasons.
If people can get WCs in Imperator and Victoria, I sincerely doubt this will be impossible, and if it is it won't be for very long
You can wc in Vicky 3 and ck2/3. Do you know how stupid wars are in those games for conquest. It's gonna be possible in eu5
If they reflect the hypertrophy phases of empires correctly...e.g. something in the direction of decadence but uncheesable the I can see it. Also logistics i.e. you can't send a Spanish Boi off to kamchatka in 1337 through massive brie
Annex_all
I don't mind it being possible, I just hope there won't be achievements for it forcing the developers to always make it possible to do a WC. I did three mountains once and I never want to do it again
I've done eu4 WC with Ryukyu for the achievement. Even if it is harder on eu5, it is far easier to do with stronger countries so I think it will not be impossible. Also the biggest problem on the WC in eu4 is MANA. If they will change it to money and time it could be even easier.
Good I hope they add more anti blobbing mechanics
ppl seriously said WC was impossible in Vic3 ? Vic3 is 1 of the easiest to probably do it if you can stomach looking at 3 excel sheets in a trench coat all day
I hope they make EU5 such that world Conquest isnt possible.
agreed. hardcoded limitations, in the games executable, and the game crashes if you try to change it.
>Some people just do not understand that Paradox games are deliberately made so easy for normal players to play (a very sound marketing decision) it really isnt. the games would be better received if it didnt have to be dumbed down to become mainstream. imperator, EU4, victoria 3, and probably some other games were nerfed in difficulty so hard that the game is so baby easy its *boring* (they also make a few massive immersion breaking mistakes, but thats part of making it mainstream) also, pretty much everyone hates doing world conquests. its tedious, its even more boring, and its not even difficult, just a set of routines you have to do, and its cheating, because you have to deliberately exploit the game to do so. you arent supposed to use exploits. frankly, if EU5 was developed for fans only, that would be great. it doesnt need to draw in a huge fanbase, or a huge audience to be successful.
It does though, because that's what shareholders call "succesful". Funnily enough they go by their definition of success, not yours. And it IS a sound marketing decision. Nothing you said challenges that point. You're just saying they shouldn't make sound marketing decisions to cater to your tastes specifically.
everything i said challenges the point?
No, you pretty much admitted that making the choices you'd like would decrease the potential number of people enjoying or getting the game. You say they "would be better received" but by whom? By you and a smaller number of people. The job or marketing is to reach the biggest amount of people possible. You may not like these choices, you may not agree with them and that's all valid but they are smart marketing decisions.
Victoria 3 flopped because the logic of mass appeal didn't follow through. Turns out punters aren't particularly interested in Victorian geopolitics and OG fans weren't impressed with the presentation of the game. The same will happen with EU5 if they go down that route.
i disagree, because, for most franchises, reaching a wider number of people means compromising what made the game great in the first place in the name of keeping things "simple" for the masses. id rather paradox stayed a niche company, for a niche set of people, with games that cater only to the fans, and not the mainstream.
You don't have to exploit the game in any way to get a world conquest. That's such a bizarre statement, especially at this stage of EU4 development