Игрок 8950·Не рекомендует·184 ч в игре

Unfortunately, this game promises far more than it can deliver. It wants to be this vast economic simulator, a military engine, a political theater all mixed up. It attempts to achieve this grand scale of accomplishment and because of its broad scope, ends up achieving none of it; feeling hollow, confusing, and arbitrary.

Игрок 2797·Не рекомендует·16 ч в игре

Don't worry guys. If we just wait five years and spend $200, the game will be how it should be at launch

Игрок 3573·Не рекомендует·53 ч в игре

真的糟糕，太糟糕了，这游戏不应该叫欧陆风云的，只能称之为一个缝合怪。我对任务树点数系统之类的没什么想法，因为最大的问题根本不在于此——也许制作组确实想要事无巨细的模拟一个国家方方面面的运作，然而玩家却只是一个普通的人，而非把君主总督科学家之类所有职位都糅合在一起的超人，你不可能指望玩家一面调控国内每个省份的市场运作，一面又要考虑外面世界的大战略，结果就是啼笑皆非的一堆垃圾系统，还加上了更加意味不明的ai托管自动化操作，那为什么不干脆删掉这些东西呢？

Игрок 8424·Рекомендует·119 ч в игре

I liked this game. I can't understand quite the strength of the negative reviews. It is certainly NOT eu4. It is more ambitious, more complex, more of a simulated economy/political tweaking mixture of all the recent games. It is hella ambitious. I think you could and may enjoy EU5 if you enjoy EU4 and other grand strategy, and it feels a bit more like I might have expected Victoria 3 and EU4s baby to play. It does take ages to get under the skin, but I am thoroughly enjoying.] I have not - however- got to the late game yet in any playthrough, and am a fairly casual player (for a grand strat) so perhaps late game concerns are fair? Dont know havent got there. I would say though, this is definitely a potential super-gem with polish and tweaking.

Игрок 0298·Не рекомендует·188 ч в игре

This is a game that fundamentally does not respect your time. I am saying this as someone who has over a 1000 hours in EU4, Vic3, CK3, and CK2 each (so 5k total). All grand strategy games will naturally have slower sections, but this game takes ages to complete even the most basic tasks. I have waited 15-30 minutes for my first buildings to complete. I play all other Paradox games on max speed without issue, though usually need to tick those down to 4 speed, so I can process events. There is nothing in this game that you'd want to run at less than maximum speed,except for troop movement. I've only played one game into 1500s, and that was a slog. Adding an extra 100 years of gameplay to the game has made this issue even worse, as you need to sit around and wait 100 years for the game mechanics to come online. I just don't see any reason to play this game over EU4, when I can complete and entire megacampaign in the other games in the same time it'd take me to finish one single campaign of this game. If they compress down the timeline, or speed up the gameplay flow then I might try coming back to this in the future. Just play Victoria 3 or EU4 instead.

Игрок 7411·Рекомендует·86 ч в игре

Игра сложная, огромное количество взаимосвязанной важной информации, многие механики понимаются лишь со временем. Однако это и делает игру настолько всеобъемлюще интересной, что спустя какое-то время тяжело оторваться. Дайте этой игре шанс!

Игрок 1627·Рекомендует·1027 ч в игре

TL:DR? Great foundation, rough around the edges. Whereas EU4 was designed similarly to it's predecessor games, in the style of a board game with heavily abstracted mechanics, not really attempting to simulate an economy, population, government, with the focus being on allowing the player to follow mission trees to stack modifiers so they can paint the map, EU5 is designed more like Victoria 2/3, more of an actual simulation. EU4 economy was incredibly basic, physical goods did not exist, nor a population that would need them/consume them or an economy that would manufacture things using said goods. EU5 feels way better in this sense, your economy is a real tangible thing built upon your population, natural resources, how urbanized you are. This means you can actually play tall, and have it feel incredibly rewarding and fun. EU4 playing tall was trash and only was really strong if you had a mission tree or natural ideas/events that made it possible (like Korea and all the dev cost reductions and such.) It was also super boring, other than wars/map painting and colonization there wasn't much to do while playing tall. In EU5 you could spend your first 100 years without any outward expansion as Florence or Kilwa, just building up your economic base, urbanizing your population, and it's actually engaging (up until you snowball and your earning so much money it doesn't matter) Trade is also way better, EU4 trade is literally nothing compared to EU5 trade. It does have a lot of bugs and balance issues, but it's set up way better than EU4. Instead of a heavily abstracted system based on mana points, arbitrary values, and 100% always flowing directly to Europe even though that's completely ahistorical for powers in Asia. EU5 trade is based on pop, government, army and economic consumption of goods. It's also way more flexible, trade can flow anywhere, market centers can be created, destroyed, moved, stolen from your enemy in a war. Geography of where your trade center goes is important, and you need to develop your roads/infrastructure and naval/maritime presence to allow your far flung provinces to get good access to your trade center. With this complexity though there are tons of bugs and issues, the game does have way more flavor than vanilla EU4 did, but compared to EU4 after its years of DLC, EU5 does feel a lot less flavorless than EU4 for minor European and non European countries. Spain, England, Ottomans, and other major powers do have a decent bit of unique events and situations making them interesting, but once you get to mid-tier powers or powers in Africa, Asia, there is way less flavor. Kilwa has a couple of events, and a nice starting geography to play with, but it feels lacking compared to Venice or Byzantium, despite being extremely important in the Indian Ocean trade. Overall, EU5 is flawed, and it is a different game from EU4. If you like more simulation of history, a deeper economy and a game that is more than just a map painter, like me you probably will never be able to go back to EU4 after playing it, despite it's issues. Even if you don't care for the economic part, EU5 does get credit for it's excellent automation settings, which should be in any strategy games. You can fully automate the Economy, Warfare, Diplomacy, Exploration, Colonization, and more. You can automate each seperate part by itself, and some have settings to adjust AI behavior. So for the first 100 years you could automate taxes, estate privledges, dipmoacy, warfare while you get the economy started. Then once you're getting 100+ ducats a day, you can turn on economy automation and focus on whatever you want to do first, maybe if you're Venice you work on diplomacy, warfare and colonization so you can set up trade in Africa and Asia, trying to get rich by bringing valuable materials to Europe like gold in Mali, pepper in India, Cloves in Indonesia, et etc. I could go on and on, but I personally 100% recommend this game, just make sure you know what type of game it is. Now many people from EU4 complain that this game is too hard to play wide in, but that's a very silly thing to say. Map painting is still incredibly easy, not as much as EU4 I concede, but still, you can quite easily form the Roman Empire and conquer an insane amount of territory that's super unrealistic. Expansion is just more expensive and difficult, having actual downsides in the short term, while long term once it's integrated and you expand your roads you'll still get the full value of the land and eventually start snowballing. You can still play wide, but now you can also play tall and it's just as engaging and fun.

Игрок 3062·Рекомендует·291 ч в игре

J'avais boudé et descendu le jeu au départ pour son interface au look douteux. Puis, j'avais pesté contre les guerres de révolte qui était aussi frustrante que mortelle et buggée. Je ne suis pas sûr pourquoi je l'ai relancé une troisième fois avec la 1.3, mais je n'ai pas regretté. Je vais d'abord résumer mon expérience puis expliquer mon bilan. Je suis parti du principe que je me fiche des profits, je me fiche des events et des injonctions des joueurs pour jouer à ma façon et résoudre les problèmes moi même. 1 - Je joue Bizance en première game. C'était difficile mais gratifiant de comprendre comment générer du controle et miner ses nobles tout en restant décentralisé. Après une longue partie très fun avec 50% de controle moyen, j'ai formé l'empire romain au prix d'une guerre épique Rome/France/Pologne vs Saint Empire Romain Germanique pour un bout de côte. 2 - Je joue Tenochtitlán en seconde game malgré les retours que c'est trop dur. Je dois comprendre comment être indépendant, puis s'enchaine une longue course aux hôpitaux, au développement et à la nourriture, tout en restant minuscule. Mise à part la longue attente des européens, c'est l'une des parties les plus épiques et réussis que j'ai faite. J'y ai appris tellement de choses sur la centralisation et la gestion des populations. Réforme sans heurt. 30% de perte sur la pandémie. Obtention de toutes les innovations vers 1550. Smooth et satisfaisant. Dans les deux cas, j'ai échoué ma première tentative. Mais le processus m'a donné un puissance sentiment d'accomplissement et de fierté. Bilan des courses ? Le jeu récompense l'expansion logique, l'analyse et la micro-gestion des crises. Les décisions doivent être pesé et l'expansion gaugé à sa capacité à intégrer ou rester stable. Il faut être patient, prompt lors des urgences. Vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre est punis par le déclin et les spirales funeste. L'antagonisme généré par un excès de conquête attise les velléités coalisatrice et expansionniste des nations rivales se sentant menacé. Savoir sacrifier ses gains (et libérer ses vassaux) peut être nécessaire pour résoudre un crise. Jouer deux nations réputé difficile joué en première fois avec deux gameplay radicalement différents est parfaitement réalisable. C'est un jeu qui récompense de prendre le temps, de réfléchir et d'apprendre. Les jeux qui ne vous prennent pas pour des idiots sont devenus tellement rare. Les seuls bémols que j'ai noté sont quelques bugs de scripts persistant (résolvable), l'interface lourde et très peu claire noyant des mécaniques critiques à connaitre, et les élément graphiques 3D très très accessoires et gourmand. Mes éléments favoris : la gestion des population, la richesse de l'économie et le fonctionnement organique des maladies. C'était le jeu Paradox que je détestais le plus au départ, et maintenant, c 'est mon préféré ! Bien meilleure que le précédent à mon avis.