Europa Universalis V is a good game. The armies, internal politics, interest groups, economy, buildings, and the way those buildings function are, in my opinion, all better designed than in Europa Universalis IV. In this respect, the game is deeper, and its various systems interact with each other in a much more organic way.
What I miss, however, is a deeper dynastic system. Dynasties exist in the game, but there is little reason to actually care about them. The game lacks more developed dynastic inheritance, long-term claims tied to particular houses, and a stronger role for dynasties in diplomacy. A marriage could be an investment spanning several generations, while a succession dispute could become a reason to completely reshape your foreign policy or even go to war. Instead, the dynastic side of the game feels more like a light bit of flavour borrowed from Crusader Kings.
Overall, EU V feels like a cross between classic Europa Universalis and Victoria, with a few elements of Crusader Kings added on top. And in my opinion, the combination of EU and Victoria works very well. The CK layer, however, remains rather superficial.
Another issue is balance and AI, which still does not always know how to make proper use of all the game’s complex systems. And then there is the traditional Paradox problem: the core mechanics may be excellent, but without DLC and mods, the available content gets exhausted fairly quickly and individual campaigns start to feel too similar.
Europa Universalis V is therefore a good game, in many respects, I would even say it is better than EU IV. At the same time, however, it is once again a typical Paradox game... an excellent foundation with enormous potential that is obvious from the start, but also a game that feels as though it will only become truly complete after several years of further development.
It is a good game. It is just, like almost every Paradox game at release, somewhat unfinished.
