TOO HARD - Rant: I cannot believe that Paradox left "casual" gamers completely behind for no reason
- Thread starter Mygreatlord
- 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.
The problem seems to be that you're taking the difficult setting to be the actual difficult you'll be playing on, it's not, it's more an internal difficult within the difficult you've gotten depending on what nation you've picked.
Basically I'd say you've got a few broad difficult categories (in which I will only place European nations because I'm a pleb who keep playing Europe games).
Run rampant: France, Poland (assuming Lithuania PU), Ottomans, Muscovy. The easy ones, the big blue blob, the big pink blob, the big green blob and the big Russian blob. As long as you don't make a mess of the start (which as player France can be done, getting ganked while in the 100 years war is possible with a bad diplomatic situation, plus the AI gets a lot of mileage out of the luck nation bonus) you just need to avoid massive mistakes and you'll be fine and are liable to have too easy a time unless you deliberately make things harder (say not making any great power allies).
Easy: England, Castile, Austria, Brandenburg. You can pretty much do whatever you like for goals and just need a smart start to secure yourself, for a challenge once you know what you're doing personal arbitrary rules are kinda a must.
Moderate: Portugal, Sweden, Milan, the Hansa, Saxony(?), Bohemia(?). If you know what you're doing getting regional and then global power isn't difficult, these are moderate sized powers that aren't going to have to much difficult growing and tend to stick around with some power when the AI is running them (though I've noticed that Brandenburg has disappeared a lot in my games, and for once I've finally seen Sweden not form Scandinavia).
Mild challenge: Denmark, Bavaria, Novgorod, Argon, Burgundy, Venice, Hungary, Provence. You start pretty strong but there's a big neighbour who wants your land, you have to know what your dong diplomatically to ensure you live, that means setting things up so your powerful neighbour doesn't just eat you and then slowly rolling them back.
Moderate challenge: Scotland, Brittany, Savoy, Teutonic Order. There's a major power right next door and they want your land pretty urgently, a bad diplomatic start can itself screw you and it takes smart play to keep yourself around as your personal power isn't that great.
Hard: Nations that normally get eaten up, Navarra, Irish OPMs, small HRE states around the Hansa, Brandenburg or Austria. Now you're really playing on hard mode, these guys die and it takes smart play to keep them around, never mind expand.
Well now you're showing off: The real challenges of the game, Grenada, Natives, basically all the little guys who've nowhere to expand and are about to get eaten when the game starts.
I'll note one other thing, a big or 'powerful' nations is not always an easy one. It's entirely possible you'll have an easier time as an Italian minor or small HRE power (say Trier) then you would as a 'strong' power like Novgorod or Bavaria, as having room to expand and no big power out to eat you can mean a lot.
TL: DR: A big nation isn't an easy one, a nation not surrounded by instant rivals bigger then it is an easy one.
Basically I'd say you've got a few broad difficult categories (in which I will only place European nations because I'm a pleb who keep playing Europe games).
Run rampant: France, Poland (assuming Lithuania PU), Ottomans, Muscovy. The easy ones, the big blue blob, the big pink blob, the big green blob and the big Russian blob. As long as you don't make a mess of the start (which as player France can be done, getting ganked while in the 100 years war is possible with a bad diplomatic situation, plus the AI gets a lot of mileage out of the luck nation bonus) you just need to avoid massive mistakes and you'll be fine and are liable to have too easy a time unless you deliberately make things harder (say not making any great power allies).
Easy: England, Castile, Austria, Brandenburg. You can pretty much do whatever you like for goals and just need a smart start to secure yourself, for a challenge once you know what you're doing personal arbitrary rules are kinda a must.
Moderate: Portugal, Sweden, Milan, the Hansa, Saxony(?), Bohemia(?). If you know what you're doing getting regional and then global power isn't difficult, these are moderate sized powers that aren't going to have to much difficult growing and tend to stick around with some power when the AI is running them (though I've noticed that Brandenburg has disappeared a lot in my games, and for once I've finally seen Sweden not form Scandinavia).
Mild challenge: Denmark, Bavaria, Novgorod, Argon, Burgundy, Venice, Hungary, Provence. You start pretty strong but there's a big neighbour who wants your land, you have to know what your dong diplomatically to ensure you live, that means setting things up so your powerful neighbour doesn't just eat you and then slowly rolling them back.
Moderate challenge: Scotland, Brittany, Savoy, Teutonic Order. There's a major power right next door and they want your land pretty urgently, a bad diplomatic start can itself screw you and it takes smart play to keep yourself around as your personal power isn't that great.
Hard: Nations that normally get eaten up, Navarra, Irish OPMs, small HRE states around the Hansa, Brandenburg or Austria. Now you're really playing on hard mode, these guys die and it takes smart play to keep them around, never mind expand.
Well now you're showing off: The real challenges of the game, Grenada, Natives, basically all the little guys who've nowhere to expand and are about to get eaten when the game starts.
I'll note one other thing, a big or 'powerful' nations is not always an easy one. It's entirely possible you'll have an easier time as an Italian minor or small HRE power (say Trier) then you would as a 'strong' power like Novgorod or Bavaria, as having room to expand and no big power out to eat you can mean a lot.
TL: DR: A big nation isn't an easy one, a nation not surrounded by instant rivals bigger then it is an easy one.
- 1
There's no objective way to weight them, but no matter what you weight as most difficult, some starts can't top the list if the criteria is self-consistent.
I found EU3 to be much harder then EU4, CK2 is pretty easy though, but admittedly that might be because i was a much worse player back then
Last edited:
Some pointed out that some expansions have made the game easier - well, I am playing Vanilla, though it has the recent fort update.
(I also have the El Dorado expansion which I quite enjoyed in a first try)
Concerning the discussion about Novgorod, I finally made it after all. But 60 years of waiting and always worrying and not joining defensive wars and taking prestige hits because I know even with 1-2 middle-sized allies I cant take on Moscow. The problems were:
- Lithunia and Poland wouldnt ally to me, Lithunia was my RIVAL, so I had -50 with Poland and "far away borders", so it wouldnt work
- Denmark was my rival
- Moscow was my rival
- The Lithuanian Order was my rival
All the Russian minors were vassals of Moscow. Left me pretty damn alone. I just kept an army over the force limit all the time, financed by trade (also my first idea group was the trade focused one), and a as many allies as possible (Golden Horde, mainly). At some point Lithunia was no rival anymore so I could ally and everything went fine, I could even take provinces from Muscowy, together with Sweden and Lithunia. Poland however is almost dead (down to 4 provinces).
I guess it just was what many said: It's not a great choice for diplomatic players. Similarly the Iraq, who is also sorrounded by stronger enemies/rivals (Timurids, Mamluks and Ottomans). I know now. I mean, I even easily made it with Pommern just by allying with Poland from the start. I think it messes up the game a bit that just rivals/not rivals influence all the gameplay and makes or break everything.
But it's okay, I guess. I guess I get it that some countries are hard. And some are almost impossible.
How is it even possible to win for a country like Navarra in this version of the game?
I remember in EUIII, I started as Baden, started a war before starting the time tracker, taking loans, building army and taking over my neighbour. Now I was a two province minor already and could slowly eat up all of Germany. That works a lot less well now
(I also have the El Dorado expansion which I quite enjoyed in a first try)
Concerning the discussion about Novgorod, I finally made it after all. But 60 years of waiting and always worrying and not joining defensive wars and taking prestige hits because I know even with 1-2 middle-sized allies I cant take on Moscow. The problems were:
- Lithunia and Poland wouldnt ally to me, Lithunia was my RIVAL, so I had -50 with Poland and "far away borders", so it wouldnt work
- Denmark was my rival
- Moscow was my rival
- The Lithuanian Order was my rival
All the Russian minors were vassals of Moscow. Left me pretty damn alone. I just kept an army over the force limit all the time, financed by trade (also my first idea group was the trade focused one), and a as many allies as possible (Golden Horde, mainly). At some point Lithunia was no rival anymore so I could ally and everything went fine, I could even take provinces from Muscowy, together with Sweden and Lithunia. Poland however is almost dead (down to 4 provinces).
I guess it just was what many said: It's not a great choice for diplomatic players. Similarly the Iraq, who is also sorrounded by stronger enemies/rivals (Timurids, Mamluks and Ottomans). I know now. I mean, I even easily made it with Pommern just by allying with Poland from the start. I think it messes up the game a bit that just rivals/not rivals influence all the gameplay and makes or break everything.
But it's okay, I guess. I guess I get it that some countries are hard. And some are almost impossible.
How is it even possible to win for a country like Navarra in this version of the game?
I remember in EUIII, I started as Baden, started a war before starting the time tracker, taking loans, building army and taking over my neighbour. Now I was a two province minor already and could slowly eat up all of Germany. That works a lot less well now
- 3
think
but you can hardly be complaining that a 1 province minor with only great power neighbours is hard to start as, though novgorod admitedly is much harder then it would look like at first glance.
most HRE 1 province minors are easily playable(atleast those in the west and in the north, south east has more larger states that would make it more difficult), i havent tried those. Except that AE is a bitch.Some pointed out that some expansions have made the game easier - well, I am playing Vanilla, though it has the recent fort update.
(I also have the El Dorado expansion which I quite enjoyed in a first try)
Concerning the discussion about Novgorod, I finally made it after all. But 60 years of waiting and always worrying and not joining defensive wars and taking prestige hits because I know even with 1-2 middle-sized allies I cant take on Moscow. The problems were:
- Lithunia and Poland wouldnt ally to me, Lithunia was my RIVAL, so I had -50 with Poland and "far away borders", so it wouldnt work
- Denmark was my rival
- Moscow was my rival
- The Lithuanian Order was my rival
All the Russian minors were vassals of Moscow. Left me pretty damn alone. I just kept an army over the force limit all the time, financed by trade (also my first idea group was the trade focused one), and a as many allies as possible (Golden Horde, mainly). At some point Lithunia was no rival anymore so I could ally and everything went fine, I could even take provinces from Muscowy, together with Sweden and Lithunia. Poland however is almost dead (down to 4 provinces).
I guess it just was what many said: It's not a great choice for diplomatic players. Similarly the Iraq, who is also sorrounded by stronger enemies/rivals (Timurids, Mamluks and Ottomans). I know now. I mean, I even easily made it with Pommern just by allying with Poland from the start. I think it messes up the game a bit that just rivals/not rivals influence all the gameplay and makes or break everything.
But it's okay, I guess. I guess I get it that some countries are hard. And some are almost impossible.
How is it even possible to win for a country like Navarra in this version of the game?
I remember in EUIII, I started as Baden, started a war before starting the time tracker, taking loans, building army and taking over my neighbour. Now I was a two province minor already and could slowly eat up all of Germany. That works a lot less well now
but you can hardly be complaining that a 1 province minor with only great power neighbours is hard to start as, though novgorod admitedly is much harder then it would look like at first glance.
How is it even possible to win for a country like Navarra in this version of the game?
I remember in EUIII, I started as Baden, started a war before starting the time tracker, taking loans, building army and taking over my neighbour. Now I was a two province minor already and could slowly eat up all of Germany. That works a lot less well now
With small countries like Navarra is usually a bit of luck with who rivals who and is willing to ally you at game start. If you can get a big ally you can gang up on one of your big neightbours and grow into a medium power quite quickly, or you die a quick death.
I do agree with Bavaria being very difficult to expand. Bavaria was one of the first countries I wanted to play when EU4 was released, and even now I have still not been able to get any bigger than 11 provinces after many many tries.
You are sandwiched in between Austria and Bohemia.
It is now even harder to get an alliance with Austria it seems.
Your also surrounded by free cities where the emperor will protect them regardless if you have an alliance with the emperor.
The Palatinate since day 1 of EU4s release, ALWAYS allies with Ansbach and Austria.
I have never even seen a blobby AI Bavaria.
You are sandwiched in between Austria and Bohemia.
It is now even harder to get an alliance with Austria it seems.
Your also surrounded by free cities where the emperor will protect them regardless if you have an alliance with the emperor.
The Palatinate since day 1 of EU4s release, ALWAYS allies with Ansbach and Austria.
I have never even seen a blobby AI Bavaria.
Last edited:
AFAIK Lithuania doesn't typically start rivaled. If they do, you have no choice but to slap rival tag on Muscovy, ally Tver, and look to all-in them at tech 4 (if you can make it). I also picked up Golden Horde after a bit, wanted to use them on Kazan but they got a truce there too soon.
If you have to solo Muscovy or do it with just Tver, it's still possible but that is legitimately difficult. Still not as uphill as say Mongolia or something (unless they're lucky enough to get help from Uzbek), but legit challenging. If you can drag Lithuania into the fray a couple years at the start it's not even in the top half of difficult nations.
There is no such thing as a "diplomatic player" in contrast with a player. Everyone has differing abilities with regard to war, diplomacy, planning, and knowledge of the mechanics. Tagging someone with "diplomatic" implies that their skills are higher in that category than in other categories by enough to contrast their abilities. To me, this seems to highlight areas of improvement for someone, but isn't something that one would want to be called long-term.
Alliance manipulation and a little luck. It gets nuanced fast though, best to look to specific threads for something like that or Granada.
If you have to solo Muscovy or do it with just Tver, it's still possible but that is legitimately difficult. Still not as uphill as say Mongolia or something (unless they're lucky enough to get help from Uzbek), but legit challenging. If you can drag Lithuania into the fray a couple years at the start it's not even in the top half of difficult nations.
There is no such thing as a "diplomatic player" in contrast with a player. Everyone has differing abilities with regard to war, diplomacy, planning, and knowledge of the mechanics. Tagging someone with "diplomatic" implies that their skills are higher in that category than in other categories by enough to contrast their abilities. To me, this seems to highlight areas of improvement for someone, but isn't something that one would want to be called long-term.
Alliance manipulation and a little luck. It gets nuanced fast though, best to look to specific threads for something like that or Granada.
It's the UI that makes it difficult. Three cheers for the game actively working against new players!
- 1
Or is it your understanding of the game making it *seem* easier? Calculus seems difficult until you start working with it for years and then you wonder "What was all the fuss about? We should teach calculus in grade school!"
- 2
- 2
What difficulty are we trying to resolve here? For a new player there's the difficulty of the complexity of the game... i.e. learning all the mechanics and AI tendencies are a difficulty of their own. For an experienced player it turns into optimizing and overoptimizing so you can keep moving and not run out of MP in the process.
One important factor to understand when you're new is that it's not your strength that matters so much as it is the strength of your alliance. As you get better with the game you can rely on your strength more and more, but even then, I don't have to be able to beat France, my alliance has to be able to beat their alliance. Easier starts for a new player are generally ones where you can get decent alliances up without much issue. Portugal is often suggested because you start allied to England, and you get a historical friendship modifier with Castile - your only European neighbor. That makes the alliance much easier to hold onto and gives you a buffer as you start learning mechanics.
Now that you have your alliances you want to keep them. Naturally you can go through the diplomacy screen and "do all the things", but another key is being able to expand (if that's what you want to do) without making enemies out of your allies. Preferably you also don't want to make enemies out of a larger alliance than your own as well. You're going to do this by not expanding into territory your allies want, and by trying not to get a lot of Aggressive Expansion on them (yes experienced players, I know that AE is "easily managed", this is for new players who don't know how to manage it yet).
When you're looking at your start think a bit about your conquest path and who it will offend. It's going to offend nearby nations particularly ones of the same religion far more than distant nations or nations of different religions. Going back to Portugal you're setup with an opportunity to expand in North Africa which will give very little AE to anyone in Europe. (as a side note on Portugal, you are also in a great position to learn about the trade and colonization mechanics).
Last thing I would say in trying to find an easy start if you're new is to try to keep things simple and here are some basic guidelines for that. Don't feel it's necessary to follow these, and remember that as you learn about mechanics you will almost definitely want to break a lot of them:
1) Being western means you don't have to westernize which is one less thing to manage (but once you've learned how to play well, learning to play a non-western nation is a great way to both experience the game differently and learn to better optimize your resources).
2) Being a monarchy or theocracy will be easier than managing a republic. (A republic will give you better control of your MP and once you learn how to work with it, it's a stronger choice than monarchy easily. The first 1-2 tries will be a bit frustrating though, so save that frustration. Besides, I'm starting to feel that I can manage theocracy RNG well enough to not need the downsides of a republic).
3) The more development and larger army you start with the easier it will be to make allies. Of course, it also puts you in a higher category for who can rival you, so keep that in mind if you're playing an area with limited numbers of large nations.
4) When you start up the game, check what countries start with cores and claims on you. If large countries do it's a good sign they'll want to go to war with you soon, and it might not be the country you want to use for now.
5) If you are playing and getting beat down consistently, switch and play as the nation that beat you down. You can do this by starting a new game as that nation, or if not in Ironman you can load a save and select that nation. Remember the goal is to learn the complexities then learn the optimization.
6) Don't pick a starting nation that has to conquer into the HRE. HRE adds a bit more to the diplomatic situation and you probably don't want to mess with it while learning mechanics. Being part of the HRE and conquering outside the empire's lands is fine though.
And really quick in my massively long post to look at a few nations mentioned:
Portugal is an easy start because of things already mentioned. Hopefully trying to answer the questions of "why" they are easier will help you identify other countries if you don't want to play them.
Ottomans have a lot of cores on nearby countries, can often ally some large Sunnis (Tunis and Crimea will almost always ally, but other nations in the middle east are easily within reach too) and don't necessarily need it. Just don't go on a rampage through Europe to start the game.
Novgorod being one of the hardest nations in the game is just silly, but it's also not new player friendly. You're big enough to be rivaled by the powers nearby and Muscovy has a lot of cores on you so they will be coming. You can always restart until Lithuania doesn't rival you and ally them but one on one you're not going to beat Muscovy. If you do play it out though, there is a good side. Improve relations with Lithuania and Poland anyway. Once Muscovy takes half your land you'll be too small to be rivals, and then they'll happily ally you before round 2 (just not a great new player strategy).
- 2
- 1
Lol Grognards
Anyway... I wouldn't say Novgorod is hard per sé, the problem lies more with your experience with the new game. The more you play the better you get. I'm sure in a month you'll be laughing at your old self unable to start with superpower Novgorod, because that's what they are.
Anyway... I wouldn't say Novgorod is hard per sé, the problem lies more with your experience with the new game. The more you play the better you get. I'm sure in a month you'll be laughing at your old self unable to start with superpower Novgorod, because that's what they are.
- 2
Diplomacy is most likely still going to involve you taking out other countries who are same culture and will be wanting your provinces. Muscovy has cores on you to start and will want those. It sounds like you got a really bad roll on starting rivals too.
Something to keep in mind about these types of starts is that they're AI dependent, meaning, you're going to get an alliance chain that can win, you won't do it on your own. Any time you look at an AI dependent start, the best players are even needing restarts to get going. Big question then becomes is this start fun enough to keep restarting until I get it right or should I just move on to something else? I've answered that in different ways many times in the past.
mfw when i read the original post
eu4 even with all expansions still easiest paradox title that's for damn sure
just gotta learn it before starting off playing a hard faction
eu4 even with all expansions still easiest paradox title that's for damn sure
just gotta learn it before starting off playing a hard faction
- 7
After 1.948 hours of play I still consider myself a bad player, seeing as I A - Don't play Ironman and B - Don't think I'm capable of playing "miracle games", like Albania. And yet, I still believe that gives me some authority to have an opinion on the matter. In these terms, I know that in some circles [cough] EUIV is seen as a casualized mess of a game, but I find that to be an exaggerated notion. In reality, EVERY Paradox game is trivial to play once you have a good grasp of the systems involved, but that is the case with EVERY game. The game's difficulty is, well, acceptable. Not overwhelmingly complex, despite the numbers of overlapping systems that you need to manage, but not too easy either.
Hell, if anything, I'd say that the gameplay feels too time-consuming. Not in the sense that it takes too long to play, but that the mechanics take too long to complete their cycles within the timeframe of a single playthrough. Recent patches have been steadily increasing things like truce timers and coring and annexation costs, and the new upcoming patch is poised to make a bad situation even worse by adding the ridiculous "revanchism" mechanic, which, while having basis in reality, has some really shockingly imbalanced numbers according to screenshots. Now compare that to, say, Crusader Kings, where even in a similar timeframe of roughly 400 years gameplay cycles take MUCH less time overall to complete, and there are ways to speed them along.
Hell, if anything, I'd say that the gameplay feels too time-consuming. Not in the sense that it takes too long to play, but that the mechanics take too long to complete their cycles within the timeframe of a single playthrough. Recent patches have been steadily increasing things like truce timers and coring and annexation costs, and the new upcoming patch is poised to make a bad situation even worse by adding the ridiculous "revanchism" mechanic, which, while having basis in reality, has some really shockingly imbalanced numbers according to screenshots. Now compare that to, say, Crusader Kings, where even in a similar timeframe of roughly 400 years gameplay cycles take MUCH less time overall to complete, and there are ways to speed them along.
- 5
I sympathize, I really do. Grand strategy titles require a bit of work to become proficient at and take a lot of work to master. However once you get the basics down the game isn't that hard to be at least competent at. Pick easier nations like those suggested here to get your feet wet first before tackling more challenging countries.
I would also suggest watching some Youtube videos and Twitch streams to see more experienced players in action.
I would also suggest watching some Youtube videos and Twitch streams to see more experienced players in action.
I don't see how it has gotten more difficult. And I'm not a super 1337 hardkor gamur, popping aderole and teabagging after every no CB war. But I manage fine. I play for maybe... 5-6 hours a week?
This reminds me of the thread of the magnus guy who was asking people how to conquer Europe as Castille despite being an amateur. Half of his questions just ooze with "I am way too big for my britches help me win". OP seems to be the same.
Also, Bavaria, while not being easy, is far from being on the same level as Novgorod. You can easily ally Poland by rivaling Bohemia and you WANT the other Wittelsbachs to ally Ansbach, since that would allow you to nab Oberpfalz easy. Also, eating free cities is done by hitting their allies, not by attacking them directly. That or hitting them while Austria is getting it's ass handed to it by the Ottomans in the Crimean-Genoan shenanigans. So no, not a very hard position. In fact, it is possible to ally all of Poland, France and Austria with a little diplomacy.
Influence ideas ftw.
Also, Bavaria, while not being easy, is far from being on the same level as Novgorod. You can easily ally Poland by rivaling Bohemia and you WANT the other Wittelsbachs to ally Ansbach, since that would allow you to nab Oberpfalz easy. Also, eating free cities is done by hitting their allies, not by attacking them directly. That or hitting them while Austria is getting it's ass handed to it by the Ottomans in the Crimean-Genoan shenanigans. So no, not a very hard position. In fact, it is possible to ally all of Poland, France and Austria with a little diplomacy.
Influence ideas ftw.
