People only went naval to rp because, much like EU 4, navies were irrelevant in EU 3.
Also, a huge "do not miss" to manually spamming merchants into a CoT...
EU3 versus EU4: Things you miss (and things you don't)
- Thread starter Emre Yigit
- 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.
People only went naval to rp because, much like EU 4, navies were irrelevant in EU 3.
Also, a huge "do not miss" to manually spamming merchants into a CoT...
You are right, navies were mostly irrelevant. That's why people went naval for the extra tariffs, lesser cost of colonists and diminished cost of heavies, which especially at the end of EU3's life cycle could be something quite cumbersome especially later on in the game (and you needed those heavies for the full tariffs, so it was a double improvement on the gains from colonies).
And about manually spamming merchants...wow, that was a problem! If you played vanilla 1.3 EU3. Autosend was added in the first expansion.
You missed "90% of the times", and you're talking about the most particular slider (aristocracy/plutocracy) on the whole list. There was a trend on choosing the sliders and mostly people chose the same (yeah there were differences between being an opm and a giant blob in setting sliders also on the government, if there weren't the whole system would have been a failure already on eu1). Also i never heard anyone take Naval over Land as slider in eu3. Seriously, in a MP game you would?
If you were content to only hold 6 slots in your monopolies then auto-send was fine, competent players weren't...
Point taken - bursts of three could occasionally be more useful than autosend.
No, I'm talking about every slider apart from Centralization. And Naval was a choice, even if weaker than Land in most cases - it had its niche, and it still was the second most obvious choice among the sliders. Still again, it doesn't invalidate the system, just its balancing; as it was said, almost every mod made the sliders into something quite exceptional (D&T and MM come to mind).
Navies aren´t irrelevant in EU4. Sure, some nations use them only for trade purposes (which already makes them not THAT irrelevant), but for the likes of Venice a navy makes things so much easier.
Also, again there is the question of being a multiplayer game or AI stomping. Try going DIP 3 and Exploration. People will blockade your fleet with superior ships and proceed to destroy everything you´re building. If we had a decent AI that activelly went for your colonies abroad, let me see if you´d want to keep diplo 3.
With the sliders it's all about the trade-offs, Death&taxes solved that easily.
What I miss the most...
Right now, I can go through AAR's most of the time they will generaly be the same, now and than a player might surprise me with his tactical choice, some might take a different path with idea's, but ussualy none of those really differ all that much... now I am sure you all remember that English WC AAR by Prawnstar (found it)
Now that was THE MOST EPIC AAR I've ever seen for any game out there and sadly in eu4 there is no way I'll find something like that, an AAR that would proove to me I know sh*t about the game, that I'm not taking into account tons of different aspects and would reveal all those small stuff that differentiate a great player from a good one, solely as EU4 just doesn't offer you as many strategical decisions and options as you're basicaly playing in a much smaller sandbox.
What Prawnstar had to do there was drinking enormous ammounts of tea every day, during which he actively had to think about his next move, be it the idea set, direction of the next attack, how to avoid BB or which CB to use and why... I miss that feeling I had with EU3 that basicaly I never knew (or considered) it all within a game.
What I miss the most...
Right now, I can go through AAR's most of the time they will generaly be the same, now and than a player might surprise me with his tactical choice, some might take a different path with idea's, but ussualy none of those really differ all that much... now I am sure you all remember that English WC AAR by Prawnstar (found it)
Now that was THE MOST EPIC AAR I've ever seen for any game out there and sadly in eu4 there is no way I'll find something like that, an AAR that would proove to me I know sh*t about the game, that I'm not taking into account tons of different aspects and would reveal all those small stuff that differentiate a great player from a good one, solely as EU4 just doesn't offer you as many strategical decisions and options as you're basicaly playing in a much smaller sandbox.
What Prawnstar had to do there was drinking enormous ammounts of tea every day, during which he actively had to think about his next move, be it the idea set, direction of the next attack, how to avoid BB or which CB to use and why... I miss that feeling I had with EU3 that basicaly I never knew (or considered) it all within a game.
Something I don't miss, I feel I should mention, was gaining colonists based upon Religion. Catholics recieved the lion's share of colonists, followed by the other Christian sects. Not only did this mean that converting to Christianity as a non-Christian nation (and to a lesser-extent, converting to Catholicism within the Christian group) was almost vital for being able to colonise at a meaningful rate (at before the mid-game,) but nations such as Milan and the Papal States regularly colonised America (even occasionally Africa.)
Yeah, even if navies had been a failure on EU3's part, taking a focus in navies always had additional effects beyond a simple short bonus to one or two variables; this is something that Idea Groups do not have.
Another thing which they do-not have is any trade-offs, as another poster has mentioned. Even taking contradictory ideas is relatively problem-free, only a few rare events even acknowledge the oddity. Furthermore, countries start out in 1444 with virtually nothing that defines their character, beyond the National Tradition (which cannot ever disappear.)
In fact, they feel very similar to Civilization V's policy system, even though Europa Universalis otherwise goes with a less abstracted style compared to Civilization.
Yeah, even if navies had been a failure on EU3's part, taking a focus in navies always had additional effects beyond a simple short bonus to one or two variables; this is something that Idea Groups do not have.
Another thing which they do-not have is any trade-offs, as another poster has mentioned. Even taking contradictory ideas is relatively problem-free, only a few rare events even acknowledge the oddity. Furthermore, countries start out in 1444 with virtually nothing that defines their character, beyond the National Tradition (which cannot ever disappear.)
In fact, they feel very similar to Civilization V's policy system, even though Europa Universalis otherwise goes with a less abstracted style compared to Civilization.
Last edited:
I miss having fun while playing. I enjoy EU4 only when I succeded at something, while EU3 was more fun all the way.
Often in EU4 I am more or less just annoyed because most of the stuff I want to do is mechanically made impossible or extremely hard.
Lets say I want to become a colonial ragusa. First it was possible to take connacht, core it and then colonize. Then they added coring distance.
Ok, thats fine, we can still diplo-annex connaught and colonize. And then they added diplo-annex distance...
Now I dont even know where to begin anymore.
Or lets say I play spain and i want to ally aragon and fight portugal. I cant, aragon always rivals you and portugal always loves you.
Hell anything you want to do is arbitrarily made difficult. I couldnt ally venice because not because they didnt like me but because I had 10 different negative opinion modifiers on them.
Like what the hell, I should decide who i like or not, not the game.
Often in EU4 I am more or less just annoyed because most of the stuff I want to do is mechanically made impossible or extremely hard.
Lets say I want to become a colonial ragusa. First it was possible to take connacht, core it and then colonize. Then they added coring distance.
Ok, thats fine, we can still diplo-annex connaught and colonize. And then they added diplo-annex distance...
Now I dont even know where to begin anymore.
Or lets say I play spain and i want to ally aragon and fight portugal. I cant, aragon always rivals you and portugal always loves you.
Hell anything you want to do is arbitrarily made difficult. I couldnt ally venice because not because they didnt like me but because I had 10 different negative opinion modifiers on them.
Like what the hell, I should decide who i like or not, not the game.
I miss that all building disappeared when you took a province. I think that would balance out EU4 to the better, and increase the importance of not neglecting your economy.
I'd make it like this; if you buy a province, or take one you have no core on, all buildings disapear. If you have a core on the province, half of the buildings, and eventual manufactories, are kept when you conquer it.
I'd make it like this; if you buy a province, or take one you have no core on, all buildings disapear. If you have a core on the province, half of the buildings, and eventual manufactories, are kept when you conquer it.
it is the restrictive nature of EU4 that made me stop playing, it sucks all the fun out of the game for me.
for instance if you insist on using traderoutes then make them 2 directional. it is absolutely insane that as Genoa i am not able to move my trade out of the Sevilla node and into the Genoa node. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS TRADE BEEN 1 DIRECTIONAL!!! IRL IF I MOVE GOODS FOR TRADE GUESS WHAT I TAKE BACK WITH ME, DIFFERENT GOODS.
EU3 is a sandbox where almost everything is possible, EU4 is a simulator where paradox has decided everything for you before you start.
for instance if you insist on using traderoutes then make them 2 directional. it is absolutely insane that as Genoa i am not able to move my trade out of the Sevilla node and into the Genoa node. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS TRADE BEEN 1 DIRECTIONAL!!! IRL IF I MOVE GOODS FOR TRADE GUESS WHAT I TAKE BACK WITH ME, DIFFERENT GOODS.
EU3 is a sandbox where almost everything is possible, EU4 is a simulator where paradox has decided everything for you before you start.
The one thing I miss the most: Missions that mattered. I used to play EU3 just following the missions for the most part. In EU4 most missions are pretty much ignorable.
I do *not* miss the sliders.
I do *not* miss the sliders.
Well, once they removed the +1 Stab missions... 
Most generic missions are quite lame. Yes getting insta-claim for Conquest is nice but a bit meh. Ultimatedly only historical missions shine.
However, the missions that give colonial enthusiasm are very, VERY useful. You´d be crazy to not use (abuse?) those.
Most generic missions are quite lame. Yes getting insta-claim for Conquest is nice but a bit meh. Ultimatedly only historical missions shine. However, the missions that give colonial enthusiasm are very, VERY useful. You´d be crazy to not use (abuse?) those.
I miss four things from EU3:
(1) Sliders
(2) The ability to change NIs
(3) Magistrates
(4) Ruler stats that directly impact the country
(1) Sliders
(2) The ability to change NIs
(3) Magistrates
(4) Ruler stats that directly impact the country
Policies kinda work like mini-NIs you can change.
As I suggested in the previous page, I´d scrap the current and silly fixed NI system and greatly improve the Policy system to give the player more choice.
As I suggested in the previous page, I´d scrap the current and silly fixed NI system and greatly improve the Policy system to give the player more choice.
Wait, are you saying ruler stats don't affect the country in EU 4???? WTF are you smoking? Ruler stats are way more important in EU 4 since they are the driving force behind mps, you know those things required for pretty much everything important. The only time ruler stats actually mattered in EU 3 was when you didn't have high enough admin to westernize...
No, I am not saying that. What I said was:
(4) Ruler stats that directly impact the country
This I do not miss at all. I used to loathe it. In fact, it would often make it so that you would not want to annex a vassal, because you'd reduce a rich province to dirt. You would not want to conquer a province, because then you'd be forced to build it up from scratch.
I loved when you would strategically go for those Italian university provinces to get the +5% tech bonuses.
Amen, brother!
I wish there was more strategic decision-making and room to make choices, rather than when you start a new game, clenching your gut, gritting your teeth, and thinking, "Here we go again."
Some of the main "features" of EUIV have railroaded game equilibria to the point that you feel like you are simply fighting against the inertia of the system. There's far less "Oh wow! Look what happened to my world!" and more "Welp, that was bound to happen eventually..."
EU4 is simply way too restricted for my liking, and the goddamn MP's, otherwise it would be quite enjoyable.
I also hated buildings disappearing. Terrible feature.
I also hated buildings disappearing. Terrible feature.