what are we supposed to do in this game

[davej]

Is the goal of EU4 to take a country and go aggressively as possible with it being the strongest in the world (or WC if times allows), or are you supposed to develop marginally and be content with some other criteria? Everything in the ledger and scoring suggests that the former is the goal, but with the ever evolving dlcs and game mechanics, it seems to be the latter, creating for me at least, a purpose conflict.

I've taken a hiatus from this game and after reading up on all the new dlcs I don't have, I still ask myself this fundamental question. Without knowing, you end up creating what you think should be the goals of this game and how the mechanics should work, but it inevitably clashes with the evolving rules and it gets you frustrated with the whole thing, or find it dull. I don't want to get too involved with my issues of the game, but I just want to hear from people who feel what the real goal is with EU4.

 

[Badesumofu]

The decs have made a point of not instituting any definite goal or win-state. Your goal is whatever you set yourself whether that be to survive from a difficult start, conquer the world as Ryukyu, or just build a strong state with pretty borders.

The longer you play, the loftier you will probably need to set your goals in order to stay engaged.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

It's a sandbox game; there is no goal.

 

[Dell19]

There are achievements to aim for and I usually pick one for each game I play.

Also I'm not sure that each DLC actually makes expansion harder. It tends to be that one method is nerfed whilst another is introduced.

 

[iquabakaner]

If you really need somebody to set a goal for you, achievements would be your way to go. I mostly roleplay, but also hunt achievements from time to time, depending on whether I feel like it.

 

[FrogCrusher]

There is no specific goals but you should know that the game mechanics are designed toward wide game more than tall game.
So even with all the dlc, don't expect to have internal realm management. That's why lots of players say it's boring if you're not blobbing.

 

[Tom D.]

This is what makes Paradox games so good IMO: you can do whatever you like and set your own goals. All that freedom to do what you like to achieve with your nation in 400 years, it's what keeps me playing this game. If the goal would always be the same, I would've stopped playing it long ago.

 

[Rocketskates]

to paint maps, splashing the entire canvas with one color is not painting

 

[peleliu]

I've never found the game dull and revel in micromanaging everything from spies and merchants to estates and ship upgrades. Sure, improvements could be made like more control over battles and better AI use of armies (that does drive me nuts), but overall it has everything I want in a strategy game. It even covers my favorite period of history.

As for goals...it is a sandbox so you must set your own goals. It can be achievements. Perhaps a general goal like destroy the Ottomans, unify Italy or be the sole colonizer of all of South America. Perhaps something a bit more unusual like playing a Free City and making sure the HRE survives to 1821. I tend to go the role-playing route and pick a general goal or theme.

My current Portugal game, for example, is a RP campaign driven by missions. I always take the last mission in the mission list, work to complete it, then move to the next mission. The one fixed rule for this campaign is no manual province development...events only. In the early game I got to bash heads in Morocco then got exploration missions and got to dabble with a couple of colonies in Africa and in Brazil. Then the big mission hit...Italian Ambition. That set off an unbroken series of wars lasting 50 years followed by a 20 year peace then another 50 years of war drawing in most of Europe to north Italy. To top it off most of the Religious League War was fought in north Italy. Much of northern Italy has been close to 100 devastation for a century. Basically I've spent 150 years tied up in Italy trying to take then protect my holdings there. Quite a challenging game and down a path I never expected as Portugal.

 

[SKOTy]

The goal is to have fun.

 

[Coffer]

Hold hands with your Teutonic friend as the Livonian Order, form Kurland, then cry as your friend refuses to follow you in the reformation and decides bashing your head in is a better idea. Life in a nutshell.



I generally have no creativity, but just doing whatever you want and experimenting as you go along is something anyone can do. If you don't have any ideas right now, you will after a few runs. Make your own fun.

 

[davej]

There is no specific goals but you should know that the game mechanics are designed toward wide game more than tall game.
So even with all the dlc, don't expect to have internal realm management. That's why lots of players say it's boring if you're not blobbing.

I agree with them, why not have more internal management? Granted, they have come a long way since vanilla, but it's still boring with most minors.

One example I find strange is taxation. In this game, maximizing taxation is encouraged without any cons. But with tariffs, it is.

Trade is too abstract, why can't they make a true bartering system work? etc.

This is what makes Paradox games so good IMO: you can do whatever you like and set your own goals. All that freedom to do what you like to achieve with your nation in 400 years, it's what keeps me playing this game. If the goal would always be the same, I would've stopped playing it long ago.

That's my point, doing whatever you like leads to game rules you end up hating cause, by definition, the objective isn't defined and then how the game is supposed to be played becomes arbitrary.

 

[ahyangyi]

I agree with them, why not have more internal management?

It's easier said than done. If you give concrete examples, they might be properly discussed. But "we need more internal management" isn't one.

Granted, they have come a long way since vanilla, but it's still boring with most minors.

What's interesting for minors could be terrible micromanagement for majors. The current implementation of estates are borderline annoying for large empires already. And when you argue for historicity, do note that large empires (as large as the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Ming and Qing) were historical too.

One example I find strange is taxation. In this game, maximizing taxation is encouraged without any cons. But with tariffs, it is.

Mechanically, making tax efficiency a purely positively thing makes things simpler. You could also design a game where the tax efficiency works both ways, but you have not explained why that would be better. Just "I think it does" does not convince me.
Thematically, tax efficiency is not taxation. Basically the burden of the people is the same, but the better governments can actually collect more and lose less in the transmission.

Trade is too abstract, why can't they make a true bartering system work? etc.

Please give a design or an example of what a "true bartering system" would look like.

Vic2 is a possible reference for a demand/supply driven global trade network. But as many people had pointed out, the EU4 era trade was nowhere as global as the Vic2 era and a different mechanism would be needed and we need to think about exactly how different it will be.
And in its early history, EU4 actually had a demand/supply system. But when the designers decide to remove it from the game, not many players missed it. The system sounds good on paper, but never made things interesting enough and just adds a layer of obscurity to the game.

 

[Viado Celtru]

I set myself a goal before starting a game of viki, eu, ckii. Often it's start as someone small and form nation 'x', colonise 'y' and destroy 'z'

 

[makaramus]

The goal is to have fun.

I am sad for person that disaggreed with this post

when I play this game I am planning to be efficent as possible! Every MP point will be used alliances will be formed with good foundations are formed. Have maximum amount of states + accepted cultures . everything else is given to vassals with right culture.

world conquest is absolute victory but its usually making you more powerful than others because you destroyed everyone around you... my goal is thinking as "if game continued after 1800 years"

 

[Badesumofu]

I am sad for person that disaggreed with this post

I also found it a little odd to disagree with that post. The only thing I can think of is that strictly speaking having fun is the goal of playing the game. It is not a goal of the game itself. That would be an extremely pedantic reason to disagree a post, though.

 

[bradles0]

to paint maps, splashing the entire canvas with one color is not painting

Paint in CK2 direct vassal mode
Check out this masterpiece (yes those are all direct vassals, no, no one has a contiguous border)

 

[Nyrael]

You choose a country, look at their situation, set proper goals, and try to achieve them. That is, the game itself sets no goals for you, you set them yourself.