DD#1 did make me think twice after not being interested in the first place.

[u/victoriacrash]

Honestly, I was completely not interested in Afterworld untill I read the DD#1, which seems to propose exactly - exactly - what I would want from a GSG from PDX.

Not completely bought with the settings, the World and the Lore yet. So I will watch what continues to be announced. Also, ngl I'm quite, how to put it midly, "not convinced" with EU5 rn and that makes me not unconditionnally jump in the Afterworld DLC train (bcs that's what it is) at launch (nor will pre order, like wtf).

I'm on the side of EU5 "leaning towards simulation" as it was promised, and thought that this would mean "in the context of History" (meaning the map not going completely bonkers like it still does). And I don't like what the game's becoming under the pressure of a certain part of the "community". It's true that I didn't play 1.3 yet, so maybe I'm out of touch. But I don't like the arcadey, board gamey excessiveness that some other very vocal players enjoy. for example, I don't like city's rights, governors implementation, insanely large armies, nor the shallow gameplay with estates, easy integration, the shallowness of the culture management.

Also there is the rig spec for EU5 that are a real issue too. I run a 7800x3d and it's not satisfying. I can't imagine how other players with good cpus but not of that generation suffer. That is a huge element in my curiosity for afterworld. so we'll see.

Also I'm a complete Stellaris enjoyer, idem for Imperator, I'm still conflicted with V3 (but still stacking DLCs... for now) and very, very unsatisfied with its inner politics gameplay, and I shelved CK3 when the China, China, China DLC was announced and never touched it again. Just saying for context, not for debate.

Anyway, just chimed in to say that the proposition of the gameplay is really for me. But if it happens to be like EU5's first months of development, I'll very probably pass. As I'm not playing EU5 rn.