EU lacks identity

[Nihtantuel]

I've played Eu3 back when these games were a bit lackluster. And since EU4 came out I have quite abandoned this community because the game I cared about the most was completely alien to me.

I haven't been able to put my finger on it for while, but given how HoI4. CK3 and Vicky3 are shaping up to be very distinct games of their own, EU doesn't have any of that. All it has Is a bunch of random mechanics duct taped together at this point.

Unlike the other games it covers an extremely extensive and varied period of time and the best EU4 can do about reflecting it is railroading you through the first couple hundred years (via completely overpowered national missions and events), contrary to what the game's intention is supposed to be.

I have been a fan of EU3 as it has been the first Paradox game I got into, but I have completely hated EU4 and have never played it passed the 10 hours when it came out, because the game direction it took was completely contrary to what I can enjoy (mana points). The more it developed the worse it got. The whole game looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together and duct taped in an attempt to make a coherent game. To me it still doesn't form a coherent game, even after all this time has passed. And a one I'd never enjoy playing.

I hope EU5 can do a better job at finding its identity. Otherwise it would be one more game I take a look at and throw away in the feel of exasperation.

 

[Zaddy]

Eh, I feel like EU4 in particular has it's own identity, away from Paradox's other main games. It's a historically flavored map painter/war game, which is quite distinct from at least Vicky and CK2. It may simply be that you don't like this direction that the game has taken.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I've played Eu3 back when these games were a bit lackluster. And since EU4 came out I have quite abandoned this community because the game I cared about the most was completely alien to me.

I haven't been able to put my finger on it for while, but given how HoI4. CK3 and Vicky3 are shaping up to be very distinct games of their own, EU doesn't have any of that. All it has Is a bunch of random mechanics duct taped together at this point.

Unlike the other games it covers an extremely extensive and varied period of time and the best EU4 can do about reflecting it is railroading you through the first couple hundred years (via completely overpowered national missions and events), contrary to what the game's intention is supposed to be.

I have been a fan of EU3 as it has been the first Paradox game I got into, but I have completely hated EU4 and have never played it passed the 10 hours when it came out, because the game direction it took was completely contrary to what I can enjoy (mana points). The more it developed the worse it got. The whole game looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together and duct taped in an attempt to make a coherent game. To me it still doesn't form a coherent game, even after all this time has passed. And a one I'd never enjoy playing.

I hope EU5 can do a better job at finding its identity. Otherwise it would be one more game I take a look at and throw away in the feel of exasperation.

Err if you absolutely hate EU 4 and never played past the 10 hour mark what makes you think that you know what you are talking about when you point out what you supposedly dislike about EU 4? How can you say that the game has a bunch of duct taped systems that don't work together when you yourself admits to lack much experience playing the game?

 

[LSF]

Sorry, but what the hell is you

I've played Eu3 back when these games were a bit lackluster. And since EU4 came out I have quite abandoned this community because the game I cared about the most was completely alien to me.

I haven't been able to put my finger on it for while, but given how HoI4. CK3 and Vicky3 are shaping up to be very distinct games of their own, EU doesn't have any of that. All it has Is a bunch of random mechanics duct taped together at this point.

Unlike the other games it covers an extremely extensive and varied period of time and the best EU4 can do about reflecting it is railroading you through the first couple hundred years (via completely overpowered national missions and events), contrary to what the game's intention is supposed to be.

I have been a fan of EU3 as it has been the first Paradox game I got into, but I have completely hated EU4 and have never played it passed the 10 hours when it came out, because the game direction it took was completely contrary to what I can enjoy (mana points). The more it developed the worse it got. The whole game looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together and duct taped in an attempt to make a coherent game. To me it still doesn't form a coherent game, even after all this time has passed. And a one I'd never enjoy playing.

I hope EU5 can do a better job at finding its identity. Otherwise it would be one more game I take a look at and throw away in the feel of exasperation.

Sorry, but what the hell is your thread about?

You just stated you hate EU4 and cant see its identity after playing 10 hours. You write that in a forum with people who played hundreds or thousands of hours, so people who know the game better than you and who obviously dont hate the game.

What do you want? To convince people who knows better than you that the game is bad? Or do you want people convince you that the game is good and doesnt lack identity?

For the former you will lose your time, people are smart enough to know if they like the game or dislike it after so many hours played.

For the later, if you dont like, just dont play it. Dont behave like your game preferences are something important to other people to know, because they are not.

 

[holyvigil]

I've always thought the gun, fancy dresswear, sea worthy ships of the colonial age and, strange alien encounters to be the visual identity of EU4 if you are referring to its artistic vision.

If you are talking about its mechanical identity; its risk on steroids. It always has been. Try playing some more and you'll get it.

 

[JaxElite]

Of all the PDS titles i would expect I:R to be the one accused of lacking an identity.

Eu4 is a highly abstracted map painter with historical flavour. It is basically a risk game with a speaker spouing random history facts riddled with errors.

 

[Josar]

Europa 4 is a game about expansion, much like how some of the largest empires expanded during the time frame.

 

[LastSalian]

I must admit CK2 has more "identity" than EU4, but CK3? I tried a couple of campaigns like 1 or 2 months ago and that game is just a 3D attempt with no identity at all. Not even sounds / music is special and memorable like CK2's.

 

[WindingArc]

EU4's problem is that is has multiple, sometimes contradictory identities.

It's sold as a deep, detailed historical simulation game. Compared to most other historical strategy titles, it definitely is.

It's also an abstracted map painter that started as a highly abstracted board game. The abstractions inherent to this part of EU4's identity are often in direct tension with the parts of the game that aim for deeper simulation and greater historical accuracy.

EU4 is a cash cow as well, especially in recent years. As the game has aged and its developers have begun to run out of obvious candidates for new features, they've added features that have often been simplistic, ahistorical, or the basis for gameplay loops that feel artificial or self-contained. Mission trees and monuments, for instance, are each the basis for both a lot of new content and for player goals that are endogenous to the game, but not to its simulations.

The tension between these disparate features and design choices is exacerbated by EU4's player base, which is - at least to my eye, and compared to other Paradox games' player bases - unusually bifurcated between "map painters" and people who enjoy the game as a simulator of history. To the map painters, new features often represent new ways to power game; to the simulation enthusiasts (if it's not already obvious, I'm a member of this camp), new features tend to either be imbalanced power creep, or interesting sources of historical flavor and depth.


If you like power gaming, map painting, or instant gratification, you'll probably enjoy EU4. If you prefer simulation, highly integrated mechanical systems, or strong constraints on your power, you might not. One isn't better than the other, although I definitely prefer the latter. EU4 has lost a lot of its appeal for me over the past few years because of new mechanics that I feel have been increasingly ahistorical and imbalanced.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

EU4 is Frankenstein, but you can still fall in love with (or at least befriend) Frankenstein.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

I've played Eu3 back when these games were a bit lackluster. And since EU4 came out I have quite abandoned this community because the game I cared about the most was completely alien to me.

I haven't been able to put my finger on it for while, but given how HoI4. CK3 and Vicky3 are shaping up to be very distinct games of their own, EU doesn't have any of that. All it has Is a bunch of random mechanics duct taped together at this point.

Unlike the other games it covers an extremely extensive and varied period of time and the best EU4 can do about reflecting it is railroading you through the first couple hundred years (via completely overpowered national missions and events), contrary to what the game's intention is supposed to be.

I have been a fan of EU3 as it has been the first Paradox game I got into, but I have completely hated EU4 and have never played it passed the 10 hours when it came out, because the game direction it took was completely contrary to what I can enjoy (mana points). The more it developed the worse it got. The whole game looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together and duct taped in an attempt to make a coherent game. To me it still doesn't form a coherent game, even after all this time has passed. And a one I'd never enjoy playing.

I hope EU5 can do a better job at finding its identity. Otherwise it would be one more game I take a look at and throw away in the feel of exasperation.

Eu4 is about going from feudal (or hunter gatherer) society to a nationalistic empire which colonises the world. The extended time line compared to Vic2 allows you to do much more.

 

[Zaddy]

To the map painters, new features often represent new ways to power game

I suppose I would be considered a "map painter" here, and I can tell you quite honestly that broken, abusable features laid on top of increasingly incompetent AI and buggy experiences is not what we're looking for. I want something fun to play, that's all. It's not like I hear about the new silliness patched into the game and think "Oh my gosh, I don't care if the game is garbage now, I can complete my world conquest FASTER!!!!"

Respectfully, this is an almost cartoonish view of a particular set of players who have exactly the same motivations you do; to have fun.

 

[WindingArc]

I suppose I would be considered a "map painter" here, and I can tell you quite honestly that broken, abusable features laid on top of increasingly incompetent AI and buggy experiences is not what we're looking for. I want something fun to play, that's all. It's not like I hear about the new silliness patched into the game and think "Oh my gosh, I don't care if the game is garbage now, I can complete my world conquest FASTER!!!!"

Respectfully, this is an almost cartoonish view of a particular set of players who have exactly the same motivations you do; to have fun.

I completely sympathize with respect to bugs and bad AI. Those are annoying for everyone and fun for no one.

But perhaps you're not representative of map painters? After all, plenty of people keep buying EU4 DLC despite some of the core DLC mechanics being transparent examples of power creep even before the DLCs are released. I've seen multiple posters on these forums and multiple gaming article authors claim that exploits are what make EU4 fun because they let players discover some novel way of blobbing faster. And even people who like "balanced" map painting that doesn't rely on "abusable" features are still doing something that, with respect to historical simulation, is literally cartoonish: they're conquering swathes of the map with ahistorical disregard for the difficulty of suppressing, governing, or integrating local populations and are usually able to retain control of those areas with little trouble for centuries.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with having fun doing that. It doesn't imply a high tolerance for bugs or bad AI or unfinished systems, either. My point was that a polished, finished product will very likely be different for people whose preferences are as different as ours. My ideal version of EU4 looks similar to MEIOU & Taxes; yours probably looks closer to vanilla EU4 than not. And if you're like many EU4 players and find M&T or even Victoria less fun than vanilla EU4, then our preferences are somewhat incompatible. At most one of us would get the bulk of what we want out of an entry in the EU series.

 

[EarlKonrad]

The tension between these disparate features and design choices is exacerbated by EU4's player base, which is - at least to my eye, and compared to other Paradox games' player bases - unusually bifurcated between "map painters" and people who enjoy the game as a simulator of history.

I don't think that is a fair assessment on the community. Yes, there is a tension between the game being perceived as a map painter or a historical simulation by some at the community, and even by the Devs. But I do think that to divide the community in two groups, one which ainda for historical accuracy and another which aims to conquer the map ASAP is what has gotten us all these poorly thought out updates and balance patches since territorial corruption (hell, maybe even before that).

People play EU 4 for all sorts of different reasons. A good update is one where players with different preferences on what they like to do in the game can agree that the patch makes the game better, whatever better may mean to them. Sadly, EU 4 has a track record of either annoying a subsection of its player base (think breaking the MP lobby, terr corr, absurdly strong mission trees, etc.) or just annoy everyone (Hi Leviathan). What's worse is that the Devs will usually turn around and say that X feature is aimed at Y players or play style, prompting some people to come out of the Woodworks to complain that that feature is bad, broken or worthless because it doesn't directly affect their style or is a bad representation of history (here I can point to Hegemony and how the Devs explicitly told us the player why designed it the way they did and quite a few were up in arms because they thought that it was a poor representation of history, among other reasons.).

At the end of the day this so called big divide in the community is one that it created for itself and, if I had to guess, it's a way to pass the blame for the faults one find in EU 4. Game too easy to expand? Well thats because the Devs have been catering to those pesky bloobers who just want to conquer the world and want everything in the game to be super duper easy.

Lastly, in regards to your point about historical simulation going downhill, the vast majority of strategy games aren't simulations of history at all, and this applies to EU 4. Rather, the vast majority of games, EU 4 included, use history as a setting and an inspiration for mechanics but never aim to simulation they subject accurately. Truly simulationist historical games are and they don't sell very well. One of the better simulations that I can think of is War in the East and even that game can play out ahistorical if you as the Soviets just decide to pull everyone from the front lines ASAP.

Although most historical games pride themselves saying that you will be reliving history, controling a simulation and stuff like that, the truth behind those marketing campaigns is that most historical games couldn't be farther away from being a simulation and tend to use history as a skin to theme the game around.

 

[WindingArc]

People play EU 4 for all sorts of different reasons. A good update is one where players with different preferences on what they like to do in the game can agree that the patch makes the game better, whatever better may mean to them.

Of course.

Sadly, EU 4 has a track record of either annoying a subsection of its player base (think breaking the MP lobby, terr corr, absurdly strong mission trees, etc.) or just annoy everyone (Hi Leviathan). What's worse is that the Devs will usually turn around and say that X feature is aimed at Y players or play style, prompting some people to come out of the Woodworks to complain that that feature is bad, broken or worthless because it doesn't directly affect their style or is a bad representation of history (here I can point to Hegemony and how the Devs explicitly told us the player why designed it the way they did and quite a few were up in arms because they thought that it was a poor representation of history, among other reasons.).

I think you're being a little too cynical about the developers' motives here, and otherwise seem to almost agree with me. EU4's mechanical updates in the last few years have mainly been poorly received attempts to address the extent to which territorial expansion is heavily favored by the game's balance or new types of power gaming (mission trees, monuments, tri-buttons) designed to sell DLCs, some of which are also clearly imbalanced, as you just pointed out.

The developers' choices are constrained by the age of the game and the fragility of its code base, but they're also clearly constrained split player attitudes about new features. Has there been a single anti-blobbing feature introduced since institutions (which don't quite work as an anti-blobbing feature to begin with) that hasn't received heavy criticism? And haven't most of the other recent features contributed to power creep, sometimes to the point of outright game imbalance?

At the end of the day this so called big divide in the community is one that it created for itself and, if I had to guess, it's a way to pass the blame for the faults one find in EU 4. Game too easy to expand? Well thats because the Devs have been catering to those pesky bloobers who just want to conquer the world and want everything in the game to be super duper easy.

I don't think so. HOI4 has a similar split between people who like historical simulation and plausibility, and people who love their alt-history focus trees and monarchist restorations. There's vocal ridicule of HOI4's more implausible alt-history content every time a new batch comes out. The difference in HOI4's case is that you can pretty reliably turn the alt-history stuff off by telling the AI which parts of its focus trees to ignore. In EU4 the alt-history and ahistorical balance is hard to avoid. (If you want examples of ahistorical mechanical balance in HOI4 that is pretty uncontroversial within its player base, see Germany's strength relative to France and the Soviet Union, which is meant to make the war competetive and not end with Germany getting stomped in 1940 or 1941.)

The remainder of Paradox's current crop of games, with the possible exception of Imperator, are either designed to be more simulation-oriented than EU4 - "national gardening" is the description Wiz uses for Victoria III, and Arheo described the intended experience of Imperator in similar terms - or avoid the issue altogether. In Stellaris's case there's no history to reference, and in CK3's case the main draws of the game are roleplay, interpersonal diplomacy, and scheming, not simulating nations. CK3's extremely simplistic economy, for example, is a reasonable tradeoff for its focus on characters.

Lastly, in regards to your point about historical simulation going downhill, the vast majority of strategy games aren't simulations of history at all, and this applies to EU 4. Rather, the vast majority of games, EU 4 included, use history as a setting and an inspiration for mechanics but never aim to simulation they subject accurately. Truly simulationist historical games are and they don't sell very well. One of the better simulations that I can think of is War in the East and even that game can play out ahistorical if you as the Soviets just decide to pull everyone from the front lines ASAP.

Although most historical games pride themselves saying that you will be reliving history, controling a simulation and stuff like that, the truth behind those marketing campaigns is that most historical games couldn't be farther away from being a simulation and tend to use history as a skin to theme the game around.

Obviously I don't want EU4 to be a pure or perfect simulation. I was referring to mechanics that were rooted in historical plausibility and not nominally historical by virtue of some flavor text. I'm fine with ahistorical balance if it's in service to core design choices (see my comment on HOI4 Germany above).

 

[Ninking]

I have completely hated EU4 and have never played it passed the 10 hours when it came out, because the game direction it took was completely contrary to what I can enjoy (mana points).

So you played 10 hours of EU4 back in 2013 and decided to come to the forums now and complain about the experience?

 

[Nihtantuel]

So you played 10 hours of EU4 back in 2013 and decided to come to the forums now and complain about the experience?

Yes. I have retired my EU experience to youtube. Using which I can determine if the game is worth my time. To this hour I have not established that this game is worth a single minute of it.

You stuck with the inferior experience that is this game for all these years, and have taken this time to try and diminish my opinion. How does that feel?

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Yes. I have retired my EU experience to youtube. Using which I can determine if the game is worth my time. To this hour I have not established that this game is worth a single minute of it.

You stuck with the inferior experience that is this game for all these years, and have taken this time to try and diminish my opinion. How does that feel?

A YouTuber makes what's fun for viewers not fun for the maker

 

[Nihtantuel]

A YouTuber makes what's fun for viewers not fun for the maker

In a 20 minutes video of Ludi et Historia (or a similar guy) I can experience what playing EU4 is. Because it is condensed to the first 100 years of doing the the mission tree and abusing the mechanics afterwards and all along the way.

A min-maxing clusterfest in its finerst.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

In a 20 minutes video of Ludi et Historia (or a similar guy) I can experience what playing EU4 is. Because it is condensed to the first 100 years of doing the the mission tree and abusing the mechanics afterwards and all along the way.

A min-maxing clusterfest in its finerst.

"Epic exploit guide!! Gone sexual" ain't gonna be the best indicator of how year to year eu4 is