I think it would be interesting to get a glimpse at what people value and like about Paradox games and how people differ on the matter, if you have not played one of the games just don't include it and if you want to add another game go ahead
-
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.
EU4 - this was my 3rd paradox game and favourite, for some reason it always get slated on the forums (for being too blobby or for limiting blobbing in the wrong way) but I find the fact that any small power in 1444 can be a great power in the 1700s amazing, out of all Paradox AI I find EU4's to be quite smart and constant challenge to my ambitions, sometimes I might even be fully annexed, but always trying to fight out of my corner to become a power is almost always rewarding no matter who I start as
Stellaris - this would be my favourite game but sadly the AI is not competitive enough for me and the game lends itself to snowballing which is one of my least favourite mechanics in any game, on the flip side I find nation designing in this game to be done really well, it allows me many outlandish
CK2 - I really like that war is not easily available and you have to get creative when expanding but religions and empires start to take over the world in the end which ruins the fun for me in the end, I like to play CK2 for long periods of time (I have played 4 games from 769 to the 15th century) but the late game is blotted with problems (even more than EU4)
HOI4 - this is unlike other Paradox games in that it situates around 1 or 2 wars, the AI is a bit incompetent so it is a war I normally win, I find it difficult to play minor powers because the fate of the war can be decided without you (if you don't count as a major and your majors lose that is the end of you), there is no real progression, you either win or you lose, but the mechanics and strategy of the war are easily enough for me to say it is a game I enjoy
Victoria2 - despite the high praise that this game enjoys, I don't see it as the masterpiece others seem to think it is, I am not from the old guard playing Paradox games when they were 8 so this game did come out before my time, I like international diplomacy and Crisis, they are good and I do wish something like that was in other Paradox games, the economy may seem overwhelming at first but due to very little player agency my interaction is normally "this factory makes lots of money normally build this", the AI is abysmal and never seems to be following any kind of strategy and I never truly feel challenged
Imperitor - this game has some interesting mechanics but I find that they are poorly implemented, civil wars don't happen to the strongest nations, despite the period being about the rise of Rome, Rome is not an unstoppable force that has to be stopped like the Ottomans or Prussia in EU4, in fact most great powers sit in their corners of the world never so much as speaking to each other, this is the only Paradox game I have never played until the end date
Stellaris - this would be my favourite game but sadly the AI is not competitive enough for me and the game lends itself to snowballing which is one of my least favourite mechanics in any game, on the flip side I find nation designing in this game to be done really well, it allows me many outlandish
CK2 - I really like that war is not easily available and you have to get creative when expanding but religions and empires start to take over the world in the end which ruins the fun for me in the end, I like to play CK2 for long periods of time (I have played 4 games from 769 to the 15th century) but the late game is blotted with problems (even more than EU4)
HOI4 - this is unlike other Paradox games in that it situates around 1 or 2 wars, the AI is a bit incompetent so it is a war I normally win, I find it difficult to play minor powers because the fate of the war can be decided without you (if you don't count as a major and your majors lose that is the end of you), there is no real progression, you either win or you lose, but the mechanics and strategy of the war are easily enough for me to say it is a game I enjoy
Victoria2 - despite the high praise that this game enjoys, I don't see it as the masterpiece others seem to think it is, I am not from the old guard playing Paradox games when they were 8 so this game did come out before my time, I like international diplomacy and Crisis, they are good and I do wish something like that was in other Paradox games, the economy may seem overwhelming at first but due to very little player agency my interaction is normally "this factory makes lots of money normally build this", the AI is abysmal and never seems to be following any kind of strategy and I never truly feel challenged
Imperitor - this game has some interesting mechanics but I find that they are poorly implemented, civil wars don't happen to the strongest nations, despite the period being about the rise of Rome, Rome is not an unstoppable force that has to be stopped like the Ottomans or Prussia in EU4, in fact most great powers sit in their corners of the world never so much as speaking to each other, this is the only Paradox game I have never played until the end date
Let me follow up your well-reasoned analysis with my simple man's ranking: I value Paradox games based on their ratio of stories to buttons.
- CK2 -> zillion stories, okay amount of buttons
- EU4 -> okay amount of stories, lots of buttons
- Stellaris -> some stories, okay amount of buttons
- HOI4 -> some stories, a zillion buttons
- 2
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Is "some" more or less than an "okay amount"?
Anyway, my priorities are much the same. Ranking only those I've played:
- CK2: I never got into Total War, unlike every other strategy gamer on the face of the planet, it seems. Didn't like the battles; I'm very much stuck in the AoE/Starcrat/Warcraft era of RTS. The TW game I played the most was Medieval, and even then I kept thinking "This would be the best game ever if it ditched the boring battles and focused on the dynastic intrigue part." Wouldn't you know. CK2's just the perfect intersection of my interests: strategy, roleplaying, storytelling, and medieval history.
- Stellaris: Played this a fair bit once upon a time, though never got into it enough to buy any of the expansions. Actually my first PDS game, from back when I was on a 4X bender. It's more simulationist and has got more going on than other games of its kind, but I can't help finding space games a bit... dull. Space is literally made up of nothing, so I don't get what the big deal is about.
- EU4: Recently played some of it. It's alright, but I don't foresee getting much fun out of it. Too many numbers, too many buttons, and yet not much going on. I once heard someone say that an EU4 run mostly consists of waiting for time to pass between wars, and in my time with it that certainly rang true. A min-maxer's wet dream, I'm sure, but I never cared for min-maxing.
- Sengoku: Poor man's CK2.
- 2
Less; though it should be obvious that my methods are not 100% scientific
CK2 (2k hours on steam, but i had the game before i got it on steam so i dare say i have around 3-4k hours)
EU4 (750 hours)
Stellaris (698 hours)
then HOI 4 (381 hours)
Even though its not a paradox game per-se my last would be For the Glory because all those years ago it was my first GSG that wasnt total war and i fell in love with it then found out it was based on games from another company (Paradox) so i went and got EU3 Divine Wind and the rest was history
I recently got into Victoria 2 and im loving it now that i actually know how to play it and how to work the economy (i had Vicky2 for years but couldnt get into it) now that i was in the house bored i decided to just sit down read some guides and power it... now that i know how its systems work im having a blast, now i see why so many people want a thrid one
Im constantly re- trying Imperator every time a new update releases or simply every now and again because im convinced theres something there to love (if that makes sense?) kinda like Vicky2 it took me a while to appreciate Vicky but once it Clicked i was hooked. Imperator is fun... it just isnt hooking me like the other games.
Id love to be able to sit and type out what i love about each game but my minds coming back blank but imma try. i love the individual stories of CK2, however EU4 is more country focused so i love its focus on guiding a country itself into dominance. Stellaris was more of a dream come true due to my love for Space Games... till i discovered paradox games my fave games were ones like Sins of a Solar empire and Distant Worlds and Star Wars Empire at War so Stellaris kinda scratched an itch that was in the middle of those space games.
It wasnt until recently that i discovered the Multiplayer aspect of these games which has opened an all new level of fun that i didnt even know existed. i introduced my younger brother to GSGs and he enjoyed them as much as me so we would have day long multiplayer games and it took the already great experience of Paradox games and eclipsed it... the only negative aspect is its kinda soured the Single player aspect because whenever im playing on my own all i think is "huh,this would be even better with Company" which is odd because i HATE any kind of multiplayer game. i much prefer singleplayer games but these games are unique in that they are still fun while playing with others.
EU4 (750 hours)
Stellaris (698 hours)
then HOI 4 (381 hours)
Even though its not a paradox game per-se my last would be For the Glory because all those years ago it was my first GSG that wasnt total war and i fell in love with it then found out it was based on games from another company (Paradox) so i went and got EU3 Divine Wind and the rest was history
I recently got into Victoria 2 and im loving it now that i actually know how to play it and how to work the economy (i had Vicky2 for years but couldnt get into it) now that i was in the house bored i decided to just sit down read some guides and power it... now that i know how its systems work im having a blast, now i see why so many people want a thrid one
Im constantly re- trying Imperator every time a new update releases or simply every now and again because im convinced theres something there to love (if that makes sense?) kinda like Vicky2 it took me a while to appreciate Vicky but once it Clicked i was hooked. Imperator is fun... it just isnt hooking me like the other games.
Id love to be able to sit and type out what i love about each game but my minds coming back blank but imma try. i love the individual stories of CK2, however EU4 is more country focused so i love its focus on guiding a country itself into dominance. Stellaris was more of a dream come true due to my love for Space Games... till i discovered paradox games my fave games were ones like Sins of a Solar empire and Distant Worlds and Star Wars Empire at War so Stellaris kinda scratched an itch that was in the middle of those space games.
It wasnt until recently that i discovered the Multiplayer aspect of these games which has opened an all new level of fun that i didnt even know existed. i introduced my younger brother to GSGs and he enjoyed them as much as me so we would have day long multiplayer games and it took the already great experience of Paradox games and eclipsed it... the only negative aspect is its kinda soured the Single player aspect because whenever im playing on my own all i think is "huh,this would be even better with Company" which is odd because i HATE any kind of multiplayer game. i much prefer singleplayer games but these games are unique in that they are still fun while playing with others.
Last edited:
- 1
HOI3 - Still playing this venerable old dinosaur, both vanilla and with mods. The micromanagement is a pain at times, but there's nothing else out there that adequately simulates not only the combat but the logistical limitations that defined and constrained the major strategic operations of the time. I love playing a mid-size or minor country and using the "butterfly effect" to alter the course of events. From everything I've seen, HOI4 doesn't constrain the theaters of operation according to the actual limitations of the period or the populations of the countries involved, making it more of a low-fantasy game loosely based on WWII. Besides, HOI4 is only available through Steam, so I can't play it. As long as I'm still enjoying HOI3, that's not a problem, and I'm not sure I'd even buy HOI4 if it were available elsewhere.
EU3 - Taking a small country and being able to turn them into a superpower over the course of 400+ years (or get wiped off the map) is incredible, especially when several different game mechanisms all conspire to make rapid expansion difficult and punish larger countries. Playing "tall" or "wide" are both viable options, while choosing where between those extremes one wishes to play is a matter of taste.
Victoria 2 - I've got a love/hate relationship with this game. I'm not particularly fond of the time period, and the game really requires constant and painfully tedious micromanagement of one's Sphere of Interest if you're a Great Power, but the use of "pops" to define cultural, political, religious, and occupational differences within a province is something that really needs to be implemented in more games. This is by far the best "nation builder" game I know of. I keep coming back to it, playing compulsively for a week or two because of the depth, and then putting it aside for months due to the tedious micromanagement.
CK - The interactions on an individual level are interesting, but the interface is rather primitive, and your actual options are rather limited at times. I would probably enjoy CK2, but I cannot and will not deal with Steam, so until/unless CK2 is released through other services, I'll be limited to the previous installment in the series, as I am with HOI and EU.
Stellaris - It's fun for a while, and then it gets boring. I've started half a dozen games, enjoyed the initial phases of exploration, early expansion, and initial clashes., and eventually gotten bored with each of them after the borders solidified.
EU3 - Taking a small country and being able to turn them into a superpower over the course of 400+ years (or get wiped off the map) is incredible, especially when several different game mechanisms all conspire to make rapid expansion difficult and punish larger countries. Playing "tall" or "wide" are both viable options, while choosing where between those extremes one wishes to play is a matter of taste.
Victoria 2 - I've got a love/hate relationship with this game. I'm not particularly fond of the time period, and the game really requires constant and painfully tedious micromanagement of one's Sphere of Interest if you're a Great Power, but the use of "pops" to define cultural, political, religious, and occupational differences within a province is something that really needs to be implemented in more games. This is by far the best "nation builder" game I know of. I keep coming back to it, playing compulsively for a week or two because of the depth, and then putting it aside for months due to the tedious micromanagement.
CK - The interactions on an individual level are interesting, but the interface is rather primitive, and your actual options are rather limited at times. I would probably enjoy CK2, but I cannot and will not deal with Steam, so until/unless CK2 is released through other services, I'll be limited to the previous installment in the series, as I am with HOI and EU.
Stellaris - It's fun for a while, and then it gets boring. I've started half a dozen games, enjoyed the initial phases of exploration, early expansion, and initial clashes., and eventually gotten bored with each of them after the borders solidified.
My Top3:
1. Hoi3: i played Hoi4 a year or so intensive but there was a point where i thought: man! i miss those research tree, the micromanagement with the leaders/divisions. Then i found out about the Imperium Mod and love it - although i have severe problems with crashes.
2. Vicky2: one word: pops! I still play it with several mods
3: EUIV: M&T Fan from the beginning. I dont play it Vanilla.
Sometimes i fire up CKII and Stellaris and enjoy it for some time. Here i also play only mods...
1. Hoi3: i played Hoi4 a year or so intensive but there was a point where i thought: man! i miss those research tree, the micromanagement with the leaders/divisions. Then i found out about the Imperium Mod and love it - although i have severe problems with crashes.
2. Vicky2: one word: pops! I still play it with several mods
3: EUIV: M&T Fan from the beginning. I dont play it Vanilla.
Sometimes i fire up CKII and Stellaris and enjoy it for some time. Here i also play only mods...
(Note for future readers - this has been posted before CK 3 was released.)
1. HoI 4 modded - HoI 4 has probably the best modding potential (at least until CK 3 is out), a large and creative modding community, and the combo of descisions, trees and the war mechanisms are a recipe for several great mods. The mods also fixes most of the complaints that I have with vanilla. The only major complaint is that mods aren't really fixing the building up your country issue.
2. EU 4 - while there are still issues and parts that needs more flavor (republic mechanics, Africa, Middle East missions, Scandinavia), 1.30 did a lot to fix the awkward situation the game has been in for two years since the release of Rule Britannia.
3. Stellaris - exploring is fun, building up is fine. It's just the generic sandbox issue that makes it hard to motivate a major investment into it. The 4X start makes starting position roughly equal, which hurts replayability.
4. Imperator - it has potential, and has improved, but it needs more flavor DLCs before I can really rank it higher.
5. CK 2 - scheming, plotting, and other such stuff is great in this game. It's just, there are some major issues: I'm having a hard time being motivated to go multi-generation, since just like everyone in Skyrim are stealth archers, everyone in CK 2 are intrigue characters. I also dislike major wars in this game.
6. Victoria II - I like the politics, and industrialization. I dislike the setting, because I feel that post 1700 starts has the great powers locked in too much. I also dislike the military system in this game. (I would probably like it a lot more if it was in a steampunk fictional setting.)
7. HoI 4 without mods - ... it's WWII. The peace mechanics are rudimentary, and the internal development is a bit lacking for my taste.
Places 3 to 5 are really close, and tend to swap around lot.
Two major factors on my ranking is are questions:
Do I want to try another nation / character? For HoI 4 modded, and EU 4 the answer is yes, hence they are the top 2.
Do I like this setting? For HoI 4 vanilla, and Vicky 2 the answer is no, hence they are the bottom 2.
So, what do positions 3-5 need for improvement?:
- Imperator needs flavor at the level of EU 4. It already has a better war system, and has potential for a overtake.
- CK 2 needs CK 3. Especially the changes to make enforce character roleplay.
- Stellaris needs ethics and stuff affect the way you play even more. Major differences instead of minor ones.
EDIT:
Tried to do some monarch's journey. -50 CK 2 opinion. 2 places lost from 3 to 5.
1. HoI 4 modded - HoI 4 has probably the best modding potential (at least until CK 3 is out), a large and creative modding community, and the combo of descisions, trees and the war mechanisms are a recipe for several great mods. The mods also fixes most of the complaints that I have with vanilla. The only major complaint is that mods aren't really fixing the building up your country issue.
2. EU 4 - while there are still issues and parts that needs more flavor (republic mechanics, Africa, Middle East missions, Scandinavia), 1.30 did a lot to fix the awkward situation the game has been in for two years since the release of Rule Britannia.
3. Stellaris - exploring is fun, building up is fine. It's just the generic sandbox issue that makes it hard to motivate a major investment into it. The 4X start makes starting position roughly equal, which hurts replayability.
4. Imperator - it has potential, and has improved, but it needs more flavor DLCs before I can really rank it higher.
5. CK 2 - scheming, plotting, and other such stuff is great in this game. It's just, there are some major issues: I'm having a hard time being motivated to go multi-generation, since just like everyone in Skyrim are stealth archers, everyone in CK 2 are intrigue characters. I also dislike major wars in this game.
6. Victoria II - I like the politics, and industrialization. I dislike the setting, because I feel that post 1700 starts has the great powers locked in too much. I also dislike the military system in this game. (I would probably like it a lot more if it was in a steampunk fictional setting.)
7. HoI 4 without mods - ... it's WWII. The peace mechanics are rudimentary, and the internal development is a bit lacking for my taste.
Places 3 to 5 are really close, and tend to swap around lot.
Two major factors on my ranking is are questions:
Do I want to try another nation / character? For HoI 4 modded, and EU 4 the answer is yes, hence they are the top 2.
Do I like this setting? For HoI 4 vanilla, and Vicky 2 the answer is no, hence they are the bottom 2.
So, what do positions 3-5 need for improvement?:
- Imperator needs flavor at the level of EU 4. It already has a better war system, and has potential for a overtake.
- CK 2 needs CK 3. Especially the changes to make enforce character roleplay.
- Stellaris needs ethics and stuff affect the way you play even more. Major differences instead of minor ones.
EDIT:
Tried to do some monarch's journey. -50 CK 2 opinion. 2 places lost from 3 to 5.
Last edited:
From the main page this thread appears as "Paradox games in order of wh" - and I genuinely thought it was going to say "Paradox games in order of whiteness."
Hard to rank them, but the first Paradox game I ever played was Hearts of Iron 1, and the first one I really got into was Hearts of Iron 2. I keep coming back to different versions of HoI2, lately it's been a lot of Darkest Hour. It strikes the perfect balance between accessibility and simulation, in my opinion. But I still haven't tried HoI4.
Stellaris is my favourite, because of the emphasis on custom empires. The roleplay is great!
My biggest issue with it is that there's way too much late game micromanagement. They need to work on how unemployment works.
https://printsbery.com/planner-templates/weekly-calendar
My biggest issue with it is that there's way too much late game micromanagement. They need to work on how unemployment works.
https://printsbery.com/planner-templates/weekly-calendar
Last edited:
I think EU Rome Vae Victis is my favorite. It was easy to get into, had it's share of drama and intrigue, and the music fit perfectly. The game has character, the events have character. The colors are bold. The artwork is well drawn.
Imperator Rome has more complications, a better map, better graphics, better combat. But the drama isn't there yet. It's definitely a better Empire builder. And better diplomacy. But for instance Julius Caesar isn't in it yet afaik. The starting point has more to do with wars in Greece than Rome, so to me Carthage usually over expands in Iberia and while I can beat them, it would take more than three wars due to game limitations and the fact that AIs expand wrong (they prefer to conquer weak worthless area rather than strong valuable area). And honestly I'd rather skip the opening gambit and get straight to the Pyrric or Punic wars.
I played HOI 3 and HOI 4. Hoi 4 automated the wrong things (army movements) while forcing you to micromanage the wrong things (research, production). Navies I still don't understand.
On the flip side on HOI 3 I didn't want to try to micromanage a big front or trust the AI to do stuff militarily. But at least the research was automated and simple. And I liked that concept of hierarchy of land units. It looked like an actual history battle map. Corps, divisions, army groups all linked together accordingly.
I bought EU 3, never played it much. Either the era or the difficulty of war mongering put me off.
Stellaris, I was hoping it would be like Space Empires IV. But still haven't gotten thru the tutorial yet. The tutorial is awesome but it's hard to get use to the display and layout. And it's not intuitive, or doesn't seem like it yet.
EU Rome gold was intuitive. Every button was self explanatory.
Imperator Rome has more complications, a better map, better graphics, better combat. But the drama isn't there yet. It's definitely a better Empire builder. And better diplomacy. But for instance Julius Caesar isn't in it yet afaik. The starting point has more to do with wars in Greece than Rome, so to me Carthage usually over expands in Iberia and while I can beat them, it would take more than three wars due to game limitations and the fact that AIs expand wrong (they prefer to conquer weak worthless area rather than strong valuable area). And honestly I'd rather skip the opening gambit and get straight to the Pyrric or Punic wars.
I played HOI 3 and HOI 4. Hoi 4 automated the wrong things (army movements) while forcing you to micromanage the wrong things (research, production). Navies I still don't understand.
On the flip side on HOI 3 I didn't want to try to micromanage a big front or trust the AI to do stuff militarily. But at least the research was automated and simple. And I liked that concept of hierarchy of land units. It looked like an actual history battle map. Corps, divisions, army groups all linked together accordingly.
I bought EU 3, never played it much. Either the era or the difficulty of war mongering put me off.
Stellaris, I was hoping it would be like Space Empires IV. But still haven't gotten thru the tutorial yet. The tutorial is awesome but it's hard to get use to the display and layout. And it's not intuitive, or doesn't seem like it yet.
EU Rome gold was intuitive. Every button was self explanatory.
1. Imperator:Rome - 1.505h (most time in mods)
Best allrounder, you really play a country with pops, economy, politics and characters with a great map
2 .EU4 - 3.136h (most time in mods)
Until I:R my favorite but it lacks on pops and characters while you are not able to play limited wars thanks to all-ai-military-access
3 .CK2 - 1.155h
Great role play with many options to play beside war, this aspect I dont like in CK2 because of lacking fleet, control zones and unlimited access for armies
4 .Stellaris - 470h
A nice Science-Fiction Allrounder, but got real problems with too much stuff in mid and late game
5. Hoi4 - 1.125h (most time in MPs)
Lacks on Politics and Focus Trees are too determined - production system is very nice though.
Best allrounder, you really play a country with pops, economy, politics and characters with a great map
2 .EU4 - 3.136h (most time in mods)
Until I:R my favorite but it lacks on pops and characters while you are not able to play limited wars thanks to all-ai-military-access
3 .CK2 - 1.155h
Great role play with many options to play beside war, this aspect I dont like in CK2 because of lacking fleet, control zones and unlimited access for armies
4 .Stellaris - 470h
A nice Science-Fiction Allrounder, but got real problems with too much stuff in mid and late game
5. Hoi4 - 1.125h (most time in MPs)
Lacks on Politics and Focus Trees are too determined - production system is very nice though.
Some context; Paradox tends to add quality of life options to their games over time. Options that are good will expand to all the other games. This means that over time, games that are 'current' will see endless QoL improvements, while games which are no longer 'current' do not.
If I only compare games to the state they were when Victoria 2 ended, Vicky2 wins by a mile. However, since quite a bit of time has passed since then, I have to report the following:
1 - Stellaris - just awesome and fun to play. Yes there are bugs and issues, but I rarely run into them myself, and what bugs there are, do not tend to destroy a run for me. The biggest 'downside' for me is that when something new is announced, it really gets my imagination going, and I thus find it difficult to play a game when I know what is up next but do not have it yet; pending on what that thing is. IE a new starbase DLC will make me want to play with starbases, but since I'm playing with starbases, I'll see the limitations the DLC is to fix, and thus feel I'm missing out as I don't have the unreleased DLC yet. For whatever reason, this seems to impact me with Stellaris more than any other game. I didn't get Stellaris until 1.6 or 1.7 or something, and I suppose its possible that 1.0 was simply awful, and therefore, the game has 'more room for improvement'. Hours Played: ~700
2 - CK3?? - Brand new, so there's always the possibility this will drop like a stone, especially if they don't add the few options I feel the game desperately needs (like larger councils for more powerful lords) Things are, however, looking quite good, and so, I have high hopes. Hours Played: ~20
3 - EU4 - The 'core' game of the Paradox brand. I love the flexibility it allows me. One game I can be Austria, leaning into HRE mechanics, gobbling up territory peacefully. The next I'm China with Mexican colonies around the local capital of Sino-Loa. The next I'm Portugal and have colonized half of the Americas myself. My biggest problem with the game is that their solutions to being overpowered tend to clash harshly with my gameplay style. Colonial stuff especially. Why can't I build a massive american empire, and instead have to stay in europe with a ton of midsized colonies that neighbour one another. Hours played: ~550
4 - Imperator - We start to get into games I kinda dislike. Looking at how Stellaris developed, and, the direction Imperator has gone since release; I'm pretty confidant many of the concerns I have will be addressed in time, but, right now? The game feels really really... bland. Like a stereotypical suburban housing district. Imagine that scene from the movie "Vivarium". All the houses are the same. Imperator feels like that. All the cultures are the same. All the religions are the same. All the governments are the same. Oh sure, there are different bonuses, and monarchies are indeed different from republics, but all monarchies are just... near identical. There's no flavour, no spice. My fav part of EU4 is how, even at launch, a game as Portugal felt nothing at all like a game as Austria, and both felt radically different than a game as the Ottomans. Imperator has none of that. I can hardly tell the various republics apart! Still, the game does seem to be going in the right direction, but until it gets there, my desire to play is lukewarm. One of the biggest disappointments for me is that the game is clearly focused on building the Roman Empire. I want to run the Roman Empire! Let me try to struggle balancing all of the demands placed on an Emperor, and try to not get killed. To me that sounds like way more fun than painting the map read. The game it is is too much of a map painter, and too little "the politics of game of thrones" for me to love it. Hours played: ~30
5 - Victoria 2 - Suffering badly from simply not having been updated in years, this treasure hasn't really seen me "play" it in years. Oh sure, I'll fire it up every once in a while and let a decade tick by, but I've not really been able to truly "play" it in ages. It's just too "out dated". Its a real shame. It was the most political game out there, and as I outlined above, I love that. I also love love love the whole "industrial exponential building" part of the game. It satisfies the same itch Factorio does for me. Picking exactly what factory to put where was one of my fav parts of the game. Trying to build stuff to deal with what I expected the economy to be in 5 years VS building it for what it is now! Sadly, I don't think I'll really be able to enjoy Victoria 2 again any time soon until I can get over my mental block over the now out-dated QoL options. Sad really. Hours played: ~350
Last - HoI4 - I really hate this game sometimes. There are just so many easily fixable problems that never get fixed. For example: Liberia has had an advisor bug since release! And I know it was reported, cause reported it myself. But, because too few people run into this problem, they don't care, and it goes unfixed. That's the core of my problems with the game. Just so so many stupid things that go unfixed for far too long. I keep playing the game because I want to like it, I really want to love it, but I keep getting runs destroyed by bugs. In my entire time playing paradox games that are not HoI4, I think I've had to stop a run 6 times due to bugs. 6. In HoI4 alone, that number is closer to 40. The bugs themselves don't have to be major. Maybe I'm Liberia and I'm at war and my new general gets sick. Why does he get sick? Cause its hot out. Never mind that using "colonial troops" was like the thing to do cause locals are immune to this. Too few people play as countries with capitals in areas that get overly hot, so, no nation has generals that are immune. Great; then I get into a close run battle and lose it cause my general was sick. Well pending on the size of my force, that's a potential run dead due to a stupid little bug. Then you have really moronic oversights, like Haiti's generals looking nothing like the population of Haiti, or how for a time Guatemala was in North America along with USA/MEX/CAN, while the entire rest of the area south was part of Central/South America. It's these stupid little oversights that the game is just riddled with from top to bottom. Beyond that, the game has been headed in the wrong wrong wrong direction. They made it easier to re-create modern states on the map, while making it harder to re-create historically plausible states of the era. They made it so that tiny countries can just go off and paint the map if they wish. They made it so that multiplayer games are balanced by screwing with the AI in ways that ruin single player games. In short, the game seems explicitly designed to hurt players who really want to "play as any nation" by telling those who pick nations that are not popular, that they can go [redacted] themselves up the [redacted], as the dev's oh-so-precious time (which they waste making the game a dumbed down map painting program) isn't worth the few players who want to play as your nation of choice. Now contrast that with EU4 which is, as we speak, making a whole DLC for the little played south-east asian part of the game map. Simply and bluntly, this game has been designed so that I have no choice but to hate it, and my only desire is to see that change because it could be the best game of the lot if only the top design decisions were not being made in ways that seem explicitly designed just to irritate me. Hours played: ~700
If I only compare games to the state they were when Victoria 2 ended, Vicky2 wins by a mile. However, since quite a bit of time has passed since then, I have to report the following:
1 - Stellaris - just awesome and fun to play. Yes there are bugs and issues, but I rarely run into them myself, and what bugs there are, do not tend to destroy a run for me. The biggest 'downside' for me is that when something new is announced, it really gets my imagination going, and I thus find it difficult to play a game when I know what is up next but do not have it yet; pending on what that thing is. IE a new starbase DLC will make me want to play with starbases, but since I'm playing with starbases, I'll see the limitations the DLC is to fix, and thus feel I'm missing out as I don't have the unreleased DLC yet. For whatever reason, this seems to impact me with Stellaris more than any other game. I didn't get Stellaris until 1.6 or 1.7 or something, and I suppose its possible that 1.0 was simply awful, and therefore, the game has 'more room for improvement'. Hours Played: ~700
2 - CK3?? - Brand new, so there's always the possibility this will drop like a stone, especially if they don't add the few options I feel the game desperately needs (like larger councils for more powerful lords) Things are, however, looking quite good, and so, I have high hopes. Hours Played: ~20
3 - EU4 - The 'core' game of the Paradox brand. I love the flexibility it allows me. One game I can be Austria, leaning into HRE mechanics, gobbling up territory peacefully. The next I'm China with Mexican colonies around the local capital of Sino-Loa. The next I'm Portugal and have colonized half of the Americas myself. My biggest problem with the game is that their solutions to being overpowered tend to clash harshly with my gameplay style. Colonial stuff especially. Why can't I build a massive american empire, and instead have to stay in europe with a ton of midsized colonies that neighbour one another. Hours played: ~550
4 - Imperator - We start to get into games I kinda dislike. Looking at how Stellaris developed, and, the direction Imperator has gone since release; I'm pretty confidant many of the concerns I have will be addressed in time, but, right now? The game feels really really... bland. Like a stereotypical suburban housing district. Imagine that scene from the movie "Vivarium". All the houses are the same. Imperator feels like that. All the cultures are the same. All the religions are the same. All the governments are the same. Oh sure, there are different bonuses, and monarchies are indeed different from republics, but all monarchies are just... near identical. There's no flavour, no spice. My fav part of EU4 is how, even at launch, a game as Portugal felt nothing at all like a game as Austria, and both felt radically different than a game as the Ottomans. Imperator has none of that. I can hardly tell the various republics apart! Still, the game does seem to be going in the right direction, but until it gets there, my desire to play is lukewarm. One of the biggest disappointments for me is that the game is clearly focused on building the Roman Empire. I want to run the Roman Empire! Let me try to struggle balancing all of the demands placed on an Emperor, and try to not get killed. To me that sounds like way more fun than painting the map read. The game it is is too much of a map painter, and too little "the politics of game of thrones" for me to love it. Hours played: ~30
5 - Victoria 2 - Suffering badly from simply not having been updated in years, this treasure hasn't really seen me "play" it in years. Oh sure, I'll fire it up every once in a while and let a decade tick by, but I've not really been able to truly "play" it in ages. It's just too "out dated". Its a real shame. It was the most political game out there, and as I outlined above, I love that. I also love love love the whole "industrial exponential building" part of the game. It satisfies the same itch Factorio does for me. Picking exactly what factory to put where was one of my fav parts of the game. Trying to build stuff to deal with what I expected the economy to be in 5 years VS building it for what it is now! Sadly, I don't think I'll really be able to enjoy Victoria 2 again any time soon until I can get over my mental block over the now out-dated QoL options. Sad really. Hours played: ~350
Last - HoI4 - I really hate this game sometimes. There are just so many easily fixable problems that never get fixed. For example: Liberia has had an advisor bug since release! And I know it was reported, cause reported it myself. But, because too few people run into this problem, they don't care, and it goes unfixed. That's the core of my problems with the game. Just so so many stupid things that go unfixed for far too long. I keep playing the game because I want to like it, I really want to love it, but I keep getting runs destroyed by bugs. In my entire time playing paradox games that are not HoI4, I think I've had to stop a run 6 times due to bugs. 6. In HoI4 alone, that number is closer to 40. The bugs themselves don't have to be major. Maybe I'm Liberia and I'm at war and my new general gets sick. Why does he get sick? Cause its hot out. Never mind that using "colonial troops" was like the thing to do cause locals are immune to this. Too few people play as countries with capitals in areas that get overly hot, so, no nation has generals that are immune. Great; then I get into a close run battle and lose it cause my general was sick. Well pending on the size of my force, that's a potential run dead due to a stupid little bug. Then you have really moronic oversights, like Haiti's generals looking nothing like the population of Haiti, or how for a time Guatemala was in North America along with USA/MEX/CAN, while the entire rest of the area south was part of Central/South America. It's these stupid little oversights that the game is just riddled with from top to bottom. Beyond that, the game has been headed in the wrong wrong wrong direction. They made it easier to re-create modern states on the map, while making it harder to re-create historically plausible states of the era. They made it so that tiny countries can just go off and paint the map if they wish. They made it so that multiplayer games are balanced by screwing with the AI in ways that ruin single player games. In short, the game seems explicitly designed to hurt players who really want to "play as any nation" by telling those who pick nations that are not popular, that they can go [redacted] themselves up the [redacted], as the dev's oh-so-precious time (which they waste making the game a dumbed down map painting program) isn't worth the few players who want to play as your nation of choice. Now contrast that with EU4 which is, as we speak, making a whole DLC for the little played south-east asian part of the game map. Simply and bluntly, this game has been designed so that I have no choice but to hate it, and my only desire is to see that change because it could be the best game of the lot if only the top design decisions were not being made in ways that seem explicitly designed just to irritate me. Hours played: ~700
Last edited:
Of the PDX games I have played:
1) EU4: 1867 hrs played - I love just about everything about this game, it's the type of game that I just keep coming back to over and over. Yeah I have to take a break from time to time but this more than any other game in the last 10-20 years has taken more time from me and given me more enjoyment. Tons of replay-ability, sky is the limit in terms of what you can do and how.
2) CKII/III: 275 hrs CKII + 30hrs CKIII so far - I really like the idea and core game play mechanics, and am loving CKIII so far, but I was never a SIMs guy and my RP'ing ideas can only go so far. Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent franchise but not something I play for very long, when I do play it doesn't typically go farther than my first ruler or two. Like EU4 there are a myriad of possible play styles and play-throughs, I just haven't jived with the franchise like I have EU4.
3) HOI4: 255 hrs played - HOI has the potential to be my favorite of the bunch as I am a huge WWII buff and LOVE the game mechanics (my favorite of all PDX games), there just isn't enough replay-ability for me and things are way too railroaded. Granted that comes with the territory of a more historically accurate sim type game. I wish there was a game with similar mechanics within the realm of possibilities of EU4.
I have been wanting to play Stellaris and Imperator but just can't allocate the time it would take to learn a new PDX game, especially when EU4 and now CKIII are calling my name.
1) EU4: 1867 hrs played - I love just about everything about this game, it's the type of game that I just keep coming back to over and over. Yeah I have to take a break from time to time but this more than any other game in the last 10-20 years has taken more time from me and given me more enjoyment. Tons of replay-ability, sky is the limit in terms of what you can do and how.
2) CKII/III: 275 hrs CKII + 30hrs CKIII so far - I really like the idea and core game play mechanics, and am loving CKIII so far, but I was never a SIMs guy and my RP'ing ideas can only go so far. Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent franchise but not something I play for very long, when I do play it doesn't typically go farther than my first ruler or two. Like EU4 there are a myriad of possible play styles and play-throughs, I just haven't jived with the franchise like I have EU4.
3) HOI4: 255 hrs played - HOI has the potential to be my favorite of the bunch as I am a huge WWII buff and LOVE the game mechanics (my favorite of all PDX games), there just isn't enough replay-ability for me and things are way too railroaded. Granted that comes with the territory of a more historically accurate sim type game. I wish there was a game with similar mechanics within the realm of possibilities of EU4.
I have been wanting to play Stellaris and Imperator but just can't allocate the time it would take to learn a new PDX game, especially when EU4 and now CKIII are calling my name.
I as of late got into Victoria 2 and im cherishing it since I really realize how to play it and how to function the economy since I was in the house exhausted I chose to simply plunk down read a few aides and force it... since I know how its frameworks work im having a ton of fun. acnl hair guide
Last edited:
1)Crusader Kings 3 (One of the best RPG I have ever played but will never play vanilla when more fleshed out fantasy mods are out there).
2)Stellaris.
3)EU4.
4)Victoria 2.
2)Stellaris.
3)EU4.
4)Victoria 2.