• 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 am not going to say what is right and wrong here.

Paradox have a game with a loyal fanbase that will pay for DLC's. I am one of them. I will buy the new DLC regardless because EU4 is my favourite game and I don't spend money on other games.

But...

I tried to get someone into the game recently. They bought the base game on sale ages ago but never got into it. Started them off as Castile, thought it was a good nation to explain war (easy war vs Granada if no Ottoman alliance), diplomacy, colonisation, events, disasters, trade goods...the lot.

After a talk through I said, "So the first thing you're going to want to do is disinherit Castile's heir as his lack of monarch points will really hinder your progress".

Little did I know, you can't disinherit in the vanilla game. I was frankly staggered at the amount of small things, that make the game far more enjoyable, were missing from the vanilla game.

For me, I will buy the DLC's no matter what, but I am not sure how accessible the game is for new players when they look at the amount of DLC's and the cost.
should've given him steam share and stopped him buying the game lol
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, good luck doing that for 50 GC per province.
Wide players already have to manage GC quite well as it is, I don't think they could afford doing it more than once or twice, if at all.
If you go really wide you are far above your GC limit anyway. If you are hundreds or thousands above the limit what does a bit more matter?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sure, people are willing to pay for QoL features, but that's because they're so badly needed for the base game. That's not an argument for including them in DLC, as much it is acknowledging the flaws of the base game, and the fact that people are basically obligated to buy them.

Why can't QoL improvements be free, with DLC only being actual "new" content in the form of additional flavour and new features and mechanics?

You've belatedly made some QoL features and improvements free that previously were gated behind DLC. It's a shame that by your own admission you're apparently going backwards.

Indeed. Paradox has a completely misplaced idea of what DLC should entail. DLC's should be additions to a game, things that can spice it up a little. Paradox mixed it up with "DLC's must be essential to an enjoyable experience". Not that I'm really surprised that they've mixed that up; Paradox is a company that would cut their game up into a million pieces and sell them for a high price per piece. EA's DLC policy seems generous in comparison.

I am not going to say what is right and wrong here.

Paradox have a game with a loyal fanbase that will pay for DLC's. I am one of them. I will buy the new DLC regardless because EU4 is my favourite game and I don't spend money on other games.

But...

I tried to get someone into the game recently. They bought the base game on sale ages ago but never got into it. Started them off as Castile, thought it was a good nation to explain war (easy war vs Granada if no Ottoman alliance), diplomacy, colonisation, events, disasters, trade goods...the lot.

After a talk through I said, "So the first thing you're going to want to do is disinherit Castile's heir as his lack of monarch points will really hinder your progress".

Little did I know, you can't disinherit in the vanilla game. I was frankly staggered at the amount of small things, that make the game far more enjoyable, were missing from the vanilla game.

For me, I will buy the DLC's no matter what, but I am not sure how accessible the game is for new players when they look at the amount of DLC's and the cost.

I don't mean to disrespect, but you are one the "whales" that allow Paradox to sustain their ridiculously greedy DLC policy. I mean, 20€ for an update, which combined with a unit pack and some music reaches a staggering 30€. Whole games are sold for that price or in that price range, and this is just a DLC and some visuals.

Still, I like the second part of your comment, especially when we take the first quoted post from @Granty. The DLC's are actually essential to have a fun game. There are a ton of basic features that are locked behind a paywall. Granted, it's a long time ago that I played the base game, so I can't actually remember the various features anymore. But I'm pretty sure that for instance the HRE etc feels entirely void if you play without DLC's. Your friend has now tried EUIV without DLC's, and the experience was unsurprisingly completely bare bones.


That is the problem of Paradox DLC's. Take an example of the Total War series, there you buy factions who each have their unique play style or feature to use. It's not like you have to buy that faction pack to be able to do X. In EUIV you must buy the DLC to get access to basic interactions. The future siege-button which finally would cut down on the atrocious micro management mouse clicking hell.

I would just like to point out that in numerous instances which can affect outcome/choices made, the UI still plainly lies to our face every time we play.

The UI has lied to our faces in ways properly documented for more than 6 years in some cases.

But let's not let the warped priorities in Pdox games warp our own perceptions. EU 4 and HOI 4 are games where the basic controls still don't work. The UI lies to us about what will happen when we pick something or give an input. Repeatedly and reliably. Selling QoL features that I would bet money won't perform at the level of strong player micro before fixing the controls is callous. Ultimately, QoL features do the same job that functional controls do: reduce player time doing rote inputs/doing actions that don't require much thought to progress the game.

Yet we already have to babysit bad UI for:

  • Grant province
  • Give province to client state
  • Converting province religions
  • Constructing buildings
  • Removing buildings (which is just awful to do, yet strongly incentivized when conquering land because they made the AI deliberately select bad buildings!)
  • Basic unit movement/changing path when clicking on same target province
  • Naval movement due to randomly re-adding on-arrival attrition because reasons

Just to give a few examples. Some of these are still paid features gated on DLC. I am not the least bit surprised people are complaining when Pdox is trying to sell QoL in a game rife with bad design + outright bugs when it comes to existing QoL.


There is a pretty clear line between "attempting to make the controls better" vs "allowing player to do things that were previously not available". Even if the carpet siege UI is perfect (it won't be), it will at best match what elite players are doing with stack splitting/sieging right now.

That's not to say the new stuff is all bad, far from it. 1.30 and 1.31 have a lot of positives for EU 4. But yeah, messing with this kind of QoL thing and selling it while the game still can't honestly tell you whether a battle is going to happen or not is going to rub some people the wrong way for reasons that should be obvious.

An excellent comment. The DLC policy that PDX has used for years has always been to lock QoL features behind pay walls. As @Johan tellingly concedes "people will pay for these additions". Yeah, who would've thought that people want a good experience while playing your game. Sadly, instead of fixing your game as you should, you decide to charge money for stuff that should already - or already is in the game, but isn't available to the player.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
If you go really wide you are far above your GC limit anyway. If you are hundreds or thousands above the limit what does a bit more matter?
Not really, it's perfectly possible to keep yourself below the GC limit even on WCs.
Using this button on dozens or hundreds of provinces will have a major impact on you nation, most important of all probably being the CCC penalty, and coalitions being far, far more annoying.

The thing to think about in wide play is how many provinces you can afford to state on your current GC.
Territories and TCs are essentially GC free with courthouses and town halls, so your nation's GC determines how many provinces you're able to fully state.
Losing 50 GC like that means you're not able to state about 166 development at minimum (with one state house per area and town halls in every stated province), which leaves you on a negative 150 development balance (since territories and GC have 90% autonomy).
So you have to ask if the extra manufactory is worth it, are 750 extra manpower (or 1500 with the right goods) or +1 goods produced in one single province worth 150 stated development?
I'd say not at all tbh.
You can always choose to play above your GC of course, but how much above will depend on your stating strategy and expanding infra will give you the same trade-off, or make your penalties even worse.

Even for tall play I can't see this being worth it outside your capital area, where you know you'll be developing a lot and already starts with -100% GC bonus to counter the +100% GC penalty it gives ( which I didn't even consider in the calculation above, so you're losing even more than 150 stated development for that extra manufactory).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Indeed. Paradox has a completely misplaced idea of what DLC should entail. DLC's should be additions to a game, things that can spice it up a little. Paradox mixed it up with "DLC's must be essential to an enjoyable experience". Not that I'm really surprised that they've mixed that up; Paradox is a company that would cut their game up into a million pieces and sell them for a high price per piece. EA's DLC policy seems generous in comparison.

[...]

Here is PDX DLC policy in their own words:
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed. Paradox has a completely misplaced idea of what DLC should entail. DLC's should be additions to a game, things that can spice it up a little. Paradox mixed it up with "DLC's must be essential to an enjoyable experience". Not that I'm really surprised that they've mixed that up; Paradox is a company that would cut their game up into a million pieces and sell them for a high price per piece. EA's DLC policy seems generous in comparison.



I don't mean to disrespect, but you are one the "whales" that allow Paradox to sustain their ridiculously greedy DLC policy. I mean, 20€ for an update, which combined with a unit pack and some music reaches a staggering 30€. Whole games are sold for that price or in that price range, and this is just a DLC and some visuals.

Still, I like the second part of your comment, especially when we take the first quoted post from @Granty. The DLC's are actually essential to have a fun game. There are a ton of basic features that are locked behind a paywall. Granted, it's a long time ago that I played the base game, so I can't actually remember the various features anymore. But I'm pretty sure that for instance the HRE etc feels entirely void if you play without DLC's. Your friend has now tried EUIV without DLC's, and the experience was unsurprisingly completely bare bones.


That is the problem of Paradox DLC's. Take an example of the Total War series, there you buy factions who each have their unique play style or feature to use. It's not like you have to buy that faction pack to be able to do X. In EUIV you must buy the DLC to get access to basic interactions. The future siege-button which finally would cut down on the atrocious micro management mouse clicking hell.



An excellent comment. The DLC policy that PDX has used for years has always been to lock QoL features behind pay walls. As @Johan tellingly concedes "people will pay for these additions". Yeah, who would've thought that people want a good experience while playing your game. Sadly, instead of fixing your game as you should, you decide to charge money for stuff that should already - or already is in the game, but isn't available to the player.
Good Vic2 mods require all dlc for the game to be enjoyable, so it's not a completely new policy of theirs
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Good Vic2 mods require all dlc for the game to be enjoyable, so it's not a completely new policy of theirs
PDX games are divided in two eras, pre and post CK2.
You can't really compare Vic2 and EU4 when one has two DLCs and the other has two dozens.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I am not going to say what is right and wrong here.

Paradox have a game with a loyal fanbase that will pay for DLC's. I am one of them. I will buy the new DLC regardless because EU4 is my favourite game and I don't spend money on other games.
And guys like you give Paradox option to not fix bugs. If you buy game or dlc regardless of state, you are leting them to be lazy and dont improve or fix the game. In the end, other companies can steal EU concept and make own game, like Paradox did with SimCity - City Skylines.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
PDX games are divided in two eras, pre and post CK2.
You can't really compare Vic2 and EU4 when one has two DLCs and the other has two dozens.
The economy of vic2 is amazing, but the depth of historical accuracy and flavour it has without mods is quite lacking
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Good Vic2 mods require all dlc for the game to be enjoyable, so it's not a completely new policy of theirs
That's because modders generally want to target the latest version of the game, and Vic2 uses the old "sequential expansions" model so to have the latest version of the game you have to buy all the expansions.
In the end, other companies can steal EU concept and make own game, like Paradox did with SimCity - City Skylines.
They can... and when someone finally does a decent job of it so that Paradox have in-niche competition, I'm sure we'll hear about it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The economy of vic2 is amazing, but the depth of historical accuracy and flavour it has without mods is quite lacking
Sure, mods like HPM are a true life saver for the game, but that doesn't change the fact that, for better or worse, you can't compare Vic2's and EU4's DLC models.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Did paradox implement the subscription model? That's the only way I can imagine new players getting into the game.
It is planned.It's currently in testing,see here:
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't mean to disrespect, but you are one the "whales" that allow Paradox to sustain their ridiculously greedy DLC policy. I mean, 20€ for an update, which combined with a unit pack and some music reaches a staggering 30€. Whole games are sold for that price or in that price range, and this is just a DLC and some visuals.

Still, I like the second part of your comment, especially when we take the first quoted post from @Granty. The DLC's are actually essential to have a fun game. There are a ton of basic features that are locked behind a paywall. Granted, it's a long time ago that I played the base game, so I can't actually remember the various features anymore. But I'm pretty sure that for instance the HRE etc feels entirely void if you play without DLC's. Your friend has now tried EUIV without DLC's, and the experience was unsurprisingly completely bare bones.
I don't take any disrespect.

Let me put it like this, if I hadn't spent the last 11 months of my life in lockdown with almost nothing else to do then maybe I'd feel different. If I didn't have disposable income, maybe I'd feel different.

Let me provide some context, a friend got me into EU3 back in December 2012. I have sporadically played EU4 since probably 2014 but never gotten into it, I'd just mod the game myself or cheat as Byzantium a couple of times a year. It was only around August 2020 that I started playing EU4 seriously. Over that time I'd already bought DLC's only when they were on sale. I've never paid full price for a DLC.

So yes, maybe if over the course of the games life I'd repeatedly had to pay full price for DLC's then I would feel different. Just providing my current experience.

But I agree with you. If you go back to the base game and play it, it's quite horrendous. I cannot emphasise how many small things that you wouldn't even think about that are missing that make the game such a pain. I think I'm almost permanently scarred from that experience and I don't see why Paradox couldn't put some of these more basic features in the vanilla game.


And guys like you give Paradox option to not fix bugs. If you buy game or dlc regardless of state, you are leting them to be lazy and dont improve or fix the game. In the end, other companies can steal EU concept and make own game, like Paradox did with SimCity - City Skylines.

I don't take any offence either here.

But let me just say, I've tried to make suggestions to improve the game before on this forum and there are tons of people who will defend Paradox or say "just get good" no matter what. Every single issue you might mention the game has is down to you not being good enough or confirmation bias according to portions of the forum here.

Compared to the only other PC game I've ever really been into, Football Manager, the development team over at SI games are on the forum frequently answering questions and facing criticisms from the forum.

Here, we don't ever really hear Paradox address any concerns (like say AI Debt spiralling or how broken diplomacy is in general, see my thread here): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...uge-diplomatic-problem.1454798/#post-27261662

I can guarantee you if I posted that above thread over at SI Games someone from the development or testing team would have commented at least acknowledging the concerns.

All I'm saying is that either as a community we speak with more cohesion about what we want changed, or nothing happens. One or ten people not buying DLC's or ripping them isn't going to change Paradox business model.

From what I can gather, Paradox have a profitable business model with £32M net income. Some people not buying DLC's is going to change that radically. Another direction is needed.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But let me just say, I've tried to make suggestions to improve the game before on this forum and there are tons of people who will defend Paradox or say "just get good" no matter what. Every single issue you might mention the game has is down to you not being good enough or confirmation bias according to portions of the forum here.

Compared to the only other PC game I've ever really been into, Football Manager, the development team over at SI games are on the forum frequently answering questions and facing criticisms from the forum.

Here, we don't ever really hear Paradox address any concerns (like say AI Debt spiralling or how broken diplomacy is in general, see my thread here): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...uge-diplomatic-problem.1454798/#post-27261662

I can guarantee you if I posted that above thread over at SI Games someone from the development or testing team would have commented at least acknowledging the concerns.

Indeed, Paradox is horrible at addressing the concerns of their players - rarely even acknowledging it. I remember at dev diary for the CK3 where they showcased the vassal contract. The Devs literally only answered the basic questions and the praise. It became really awkward when people began to point out that a lot of the legitimate criticism was completely ignored. Only then did they address the concerns.

But Paradox has never been particularly forthcoming. Neither when it comes to criticism or to suggestions. Generally, Paradox is horrible at communicating their own goals. And why would they care? People seemingly gobble up their mediocre overpriced DLC's and by extension accepts their greedy DLC policy.

They could probably learn something from SI games, but Paradox is too arrogant to do any such thing.


@grommile They can... and when someone finally does a decent job of it so that Paradox have in-niche competition, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

They occupy a position much like Total War does. While TW isn't all too clear in their communication either, they at least do try to accommodate some of the suggestions that are made. Not to mention, they actually make progress with each game. Like the introduction of an amazing diplomacy system in Three Kingdoms - which hopefully will make into Warhammer 3.

That stands in stark contrast to Paradox that pretty much just re-skinned and re-launched CK3 with very few features to go with it. Lastly, Total War at least only sells factions, and everybody will have access to QoL improvements. So yeah, Paradox really need some competition.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed, Paradox is horrible at addressing the concerns of their players - rarely even acknowledging it. I remember at dev diary for the CK3 where they showcased the vassal contract. The Devs literally only answered the basic questions and the praise. It became really awkward when people began to point out that a lot of the legitimate criticism was completely ignored. Only then did they address the concerns.

But Paradox has never been particularly forthcoming. Neither when it comes to criticism or to suggestions. Generally, Paradox is horrible at communicating their own goals. And why would they care? People seemingly gobble up their mediocre overpriced DLC's and by extension accepts their greedy DLC policy.

They could probably learn something from SI games, but Paradox is too arrogant to do any such thing.
I understand, and for example I resented the fact I needed to buy Rule Britannia just to be able to use Innovativeness.

Innovativeness has nothing to do with a British specific expansion (and to be honest, I think GB is really poorly worked into the game in terms of ideas and mechanics) so it just feels it was shoved in there to pressure people into buying an expansion they may not be interested in otherwise.

I am not sure what the end-goal should be.

I love the game but I've increasingly gotten tired of mechanics that clearly haven't been thought out and Paradox refuse to even acknowledge. An example being there's been a couple of threads recently pointing out how busted Defender of the Faith is, a simple "We've read this thread and are looking into changes" whether they are or not would do the world for buyer confidence, but instead we don't hear from them unless they're announcing something they want us to buy.

I'd like to keep the good faith and trust that Johan & his team have the best in their heart for the game and the community, but a bit more transparency and communication would be nice.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Indeed, Paradox is horrible at addressing the concerns of their players - rarely even acknowledging it. I remember at dev diary for the CK3 where they showcased the vassal contract. The Devs literally only answered the basic questions and the praise. It became really awkward when people began to point out that a lot of the legitimate criticism was completely ignored. Only then did they address the concerns.

But Paradox has never been particularly forthcoming. Neither when it comes to criticism or to suggestions. Generally, Paradox is horrible at communicating their own goals. And why would they care? People seemingly gobble up their mediocre overpriced DLC's and by extension accepts their greedy DLC policy.

They could probably learn something from SI games, but Paradox is too arrogant to do any such thing.




They occupy a position much like Total War does. While TW isn't all too clear in their communication either, they at least do try to accommodate some of the suggestions that are made. Not to mention, they actually make progress with each game. Like the introduction of an amazing diplomacy system in Three Kingdoms - which hopefully will make into Warhammer 3.

That stands in stark contrast to Paradox that pretty much just re-skinned and re-launched CK3 with very few features to go with it. Lastly, Total War at least only sells factions, and everybody will have access to QoL improvements. So yeah, Paradox really need some competition.

The difference between how PDX and CA works is pretty stark. While both release DLCs along "free" patches, PDX DLC's are a mix of nations specific content, culture/religion/global mechanics and QoL. All of which doesn't exist in the game if you don't own the DLC.

CA, on the other hand, sells factions. Each DLC offers you two new faction that have their own unique mechanics (for better or for worse) and also include new units for the existing factions. These new factions exist on the map even if you don't own the DLC and you can even use the new leaders and units that are DLC specific (by confederating the faction leaders).

Consequently, PDX has one hell of a time balancing DLCs and making sure that they are somewhat bug free while CA has a much easier time with this. Also worth pointing out that the problems PDX faces are entirely of their own making.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: