The more variables a system has, the more complex the system is. Chess has two players, 6 (7 if you count pawns first move) different movement types, and one victory condition. EU4 has more of everything.
Discussion - Is EU4 more complex than Chess?
- Thread starter Grand Historian
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't know why people keep making the chess analogy to grand strategy games. Go is way more similar in terms of mindset when it comes to grand strategy than chess. Other than the fact that chess is uber popular, there's really not much to compare other than the fact that EU4 and chess are both strategy games.
- 1
- 1
Chess is 1 vs 1. You have exactly 1 other player and he is always your enemy.
In EU4, there are many other players (AI or not) and they are several categories: vassals, allies, enemies, neutrals, enemies-of-enemies, rivals etc. And those designations shift during the game. Countries vanish and emerge. In chess there is no diplomacy.
However, when it comes to battlefield tactics, chess is clearly the more complex game. And it must be, because both sides start exactly equal (except that white may make the first move), while in EU4, you can win simply by being stronger.
In EU4, there are many other players (AI or not) and they are several categories: vassals, allies, enemies, neutrals, enemies-of-enemies, rivals etc. And those designations shift during the game. Countries vanish and emerge. In chess there is no diplomacy.
However, when it comes to battlefield tactics, chess is clearly the more complex game. And it must be, because both sides start exactly equal (except that white may make the first move), while in EU4, you can win simply by being stronger.
Last edited:
- 1
The biggest major difference between Chess and EU4 is luck.
In EU4 you have random events, dice rolls, kings etc etc. in Chess there is no randomness.
In EU4 you have random events, dice rolls, kings etc etc. in Chess there is no randomness.
Yes, it's way more complex. Being good at Chess requires you to ram a bunch of different strategies and moves into your brain and using the same ones over and over again. It's more of a 'who can remember the best plays that have already been done for centuries'.
EUIV also has an element of luck, and forces you to constantly try new things. With every patch the rules change. It's more complex, dynamic, fresh and fun.
EUIV also has an element of luck, and forces you to constantly try new things. With every patch the rules change. It's more complex, dynamic, fresh and fun.
- 1
Though the comparisson is ill made I think the ones declaring this a strong victory for chess is making an error.
From the statements it seems many are comparing playing Eu4 casually vs crappy AI to playing chess against a competent opponent (or atleast against a competent AI).
If I played chess against a crappy chess AI, it would be easy, I could make many mistakes and still win.
If I played Eu4 against another competent player that had his mind set on "destroy" not on "casually having historical fun", then a lost war would be just as significant as a lost pawn. I mean "When you lose a war in Eu4 you are already planning your next war"... you have never truly lost a war my friend.
From the statements it seems many are comparing playing Eu4 casually vs crappy AI to playing chess against a competent opponent (or atleast against a competent AI).
If I played chess against a crappy chess AI, it would be easy, I could make many mistakes and still win.
If I played Eu4 against another competent player that had his mind set on "destroy" not on "casually having historical fun", then a lost war would be just as significant as a lost pawn. I mean "When you lose a war in Eu4 you are already planning your next war"... you have never truly lost a war my friend.
- 2
Other than openings, there is no such thing as 'memorizing' moves. But even for openings, there's thousands of variations based on what the opponent plays on every single move and you're still not tied to the 'traditional' variation. Great players will often make incomprehensible moves as per chess theory that end up completely breaking their opponents. You have a very shallow understanding of chess.
Yes it is RNG, and White does have a much better win%. If I'm not mistaken though, tournaments usually work in a way that gives you as many games as white than as black.
- 2
You wont believe how many times i saw similar discussions in the net/game magazines in regarding of almost any computer/tabletop strategy games. In the end they all always devolved in special olympics competition in shithrowing.
- 2
IIRC Endgame with a total of 7 pieces was solved earlier this spring.
Chess is deceptively simple, as it often happens that the less pieces that there is around, the more each piece can realisticly do.
That said, Chess is not the most complex board game ... Go is. While the best chess computers are able to wipe the floor the best chess players, its nowhere near the case in Go, even if those rules at the face of it is even simpler, and its not simply because there've been more research into chess computers but that chess with protentially 10^120 games is peanuts against the possible 10^761 games in Go, and thats only with the standard competition 19*19 board, and not counting the beginner size boards of either 9*9 or 13*13
Rule Simplicity is different from pratical simplicity, as both Chess and Go have simple, easy to understand rules, while in practical play they can be devilishly complex. EU4 is if anything attacking this from the other direction, where the rules are obscure and complex, but practical play is, if not easy, then much simpler than the rules suggest
Last edited:
- 1
Chess is a stupid game. It implies that a battle is fought on equal sized armies, same composition, absolute knowledge of enemy positions, clear terrain, top morale, top discipline and the king is present....
Moreover there is no luck involved. Thousands of battles have been lost due to bad luck. Imagine in chess that your queen can't move this turn because she is sick...
No battle is ever that fair. In eu4 you control all these + diplomacy + 100000 more things.
Moreover there is no luck involved. Thousands of battles have been lost due to bad luck. Imagine in chess that your queen can't move this turn because she is sick...
No battle is ever that fair. In eu4 you control all these + diplomacy + 100000 more things.
- 6
- 1
So, somehow, this discussion has transformed from talking about whether or not Chess has more strategic depth than EU4 and vice-versa to how computers can easily defeat people...
I think it boils down to a question of lack of diffinition from you if you question if EU4 is more complex ruleswise than Chess (it is), or if its more complex in practical play than Chess (it isn't).
And the reason why Computers entered the question is that EU4, unless you play an empty map in multiplayer, the AI is always active in EU4
And the reason why Computers entered the question is that EU4, unless you play an empty map in multiplayer, the AI is always active in EU4
Man, you would really have trouble if you woke up somehow in 1400...
Chess is indeed a poor representation of actual warfare. Baseball is an even worse representation of actual warfare. In neither case is that at all relevant to the quality of the game.
- 3
I think it's impossible to compare chess and EU4. The games differ too much in set-up.
IMO it would make more sense to ask if EU4 is more difficult than for example Civ3.
But that should be answered in a different thread...
IMO it would make more sense to ask if EU4 is more difficult than for example Civ3.
But that should be answered in a different thread...
EUIV is certainly more complex, and it's not even close.
It's easy to see this - if you turn a computer and play EUIV on it's hardest AI setting, most intelligent regular players can wipe the floor with the AI. That's because, even with a bunch of excellent programmers designing an AI to run on fairly powerful computers, it's very difficult to design a system that accounts for the massive amount and degrees of variables in EUIV.
Chess is harder.
If you don't agree, you can download Stockfish, a free smartphone chess program. Try beating that on the hardest difficulty setting - you can even play as white.
The best chess masters are better than the best EUIV players, also, mainly because they're building on hundreds of years of theory, and play full time for their occupation.
That being said, both are strategy games that test long-term planning. Chess is less forgiving, but also has fewer simultaneous areas of analysis. They're totally different, but have similar functions, and provide similar frivolously intellectual pastimes.
It's easy to see this - if you turn a computer and play EUIV on it's hardest AI setting, most intelligent regular players can wipe the floor with the AI. That's because, even with a bunch of excellent programmers designing an AI to run on fairly powerful computers, it's very difficult to design a system that accounts for the massive amount and degrees of variables in EUIV.
Chess is harder.
If you don't agree, you can download Stockfish, a free smartphone chess program. Try beating that on the hardest difficulty setting - you can even play as white.
The best chess masters are better than the best EUIV players, also, mainly because they're building on hundreds of years of theory, and play full time for their occupation.
That being said, both are strategy games that test long-term planning. Chess is less forgiving, but also has fewer simultaneous areas of analysis. They're totally different, but have similar functions, and provide similar frivolously intellectual pastimes.
What happens first? Brute-force solving or heat death of the universe?
Heat death of the universe.
Heat death of the universe.
It's all fine and dandy when we say we can brute force the end-game up to X-pieces or a computer can beat a human at Go on a YxY board. Great, computers are faster. But it's uninteresting.
I know it's a trite statement, but we need new classes of algorithms and breakthroughs on existing ones where we move beyond brute-forcing to have these computers play (near) perfect games. Then they'll be able to generally play most every game above and beyond the skill of us mere mortals.
It'll happen in my lifetime.
Heat death of the universe.
Heat death of the universe.
It's all fine and dandy when we say we can brute force the end-game up to X-pieces or a computer can beat a human at Go on a YxY board. Great, computers are faster. But it's uninteresting.
I know it's a trite statement, but we need new classes of algorithms and breakthroughs on existing ones where we move beyond brute-forcing to have these computers play (near) perfect games. Then they'll be able to generally play most every game above and beyond the skill of us mere mortals.
It'll happen in my lifetime.
I think the main difference is that chess is a game of complete information, while EU4 (and real war) is a game of incomplete information. So the complexity in EU4 is greatly increased by the fact that you must make up possible scenarios for what you can't see.
I would divide a question into professional chess and dillettante chess.
So: dillettant chess < EU4 <<< professional chess.
The main reason that in professional chess you need to calculate outcomes that lead to geometric progression of possibilities beyond one move.
So: dillettant chess < EU4 <<< professional chess.
The main reason that in professional chess you need to calculate outcomes that lead to geometric progression of possibilities beyond one move.