What's a good score to finish a game?

[delpiero1234]

I finished my Tuscany --> Italy --> HRE game with 20123 points but since this is the first game I played until 1821 I am not sure if this is an average, good or bad score.
If someone is looking for a fun and challenging game then I recommend Tuscany! Playing as Italy is really rewarding at at the beginning there are some real threats but if you play your cards right you can dominate the game in any and all aspects.
I never finished my 7th idea group and never unlocked my 8th idea group - oh well!

 

[jrgen3]

Very nice empire. I especially like Denmark in Sweden. As for the score, I have no idea. I haven't been even close to finishing a game. Sorry.

 

[Tom013]

Most people are going to be of the consensus that score really doesn't matter, at least from what I've seen on the forums. Actually, a good number of people play by a philosophy of "set goal, accomplish goal, game complete" regardless of year or score. I'm not entirely sure I've ever even noticed my own score when I quit a game, but it looks like you did alright.

 

[joak]

By my standards it's a horribly unsuccessful game, because the empire is too large. It's a mish-mash of nationalities that is bound to crumble in internal division and the changes brought by increasing industrialization happen over the next century.

FWIW the score is way higher than anything I've come close to.

 

[sinisalo]

Personally I put a lot of stock in to the score, I'm always having a look at the score comparison and checking various countries to see where they stand. I find it the best way to judge how powerful or successful a nation has been over the course of the game since it takes so many factors in to account, not just province total or size of your armies. I had a highly successful Portugal ironman game and finished with about 14,400 points. My current France game is 15,000+ with 50 or so years left to go. I would say your 20k is really good, but of course one only needs to look at your empire to know you've done very well. Good job.

 

[lordboy54]

Depends on playstyle and what your goal is. Also depends if you focused on getting high score. Personally I usually get lower score than I might have due to stuff like the fact that you get lower score for 0, or minus stability in comparison to higher/3 stab. I usually stay on 0 because it's a much more stable point, and you can skip those excessive comets and stuff. However by the end game I get relatively signficant less score because of it.

Also depends on starting country and everything.

Personally I also feel the score system is flawed, so I'm sure certain abusive games could get wickedly high score for relatively lesser empire. But that might just be me.

 

[lordboy54]

By my standards it's a horribly unsuccessful game, because the empire is too large. It's a mish-mash of nationalities that is bound to crumble in internal division and the changes brought by increasing industrialization happen over the next century.

FWIW the score is way higher than anything I've come close to.

Less is more?

What do you do, get tons of vassals or just stop expanding and sit passively the rest of the game?

 

[delpiero1234]

Very nice empire. I especially like Denmark in Sweden. As for the score, I have no idea. I haven't been even close to finishing a game. Sorry.

Denmark was super powerful in this game. They inherited Norway and Sweden early on. I think around 1650 I conquered one of the islands from GB that was also a norwegian core and released it as my vassal. Then I attacked Denmark and had them return the Norwegian territory in 2 wars to my vassal Norway. I also took Finnland from them.

I made on major mistake which was letting France culture change all the French provinces. After a few years all the cores from other countries on the French territory were gone and I had to annex every single provinces because there was no countries left that I could force France to release..

Also depends on starting country and everything.

As I said I started as Tuscany formed Italy and then became the HRE.

By my standards it's a horribly unsuccessful game,

I unified Italy by like 1540 i think so what would you have done the remaining 280 years? The only thing you can do in EU IV is conquer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Personally I put a lot of stock in to the score, I'm always having a look at the score comparison and checking various countries to see where they stand. I find it the best way to judge how powerful or successful a nation has been over the course of the game since it takes so many factors in to account, not just province total or size of your armies. I had a highly successful Portugal ironman game and finished with about 14,400 points. My current France game is 15,000+ with 50 or so years left to go. I would say your 20k is really good, but of course one only needs to look at your empire to know you've done very well. Good job.

Scores are only comparable with other scores for the same nation, or nations with very similar starting positions.

Comparing the score of a France playthrough with that of a Gwalior playthrough would be absurd. Comparing the score between two of either would be pretty reasonable, though score can be gamed a bit.

 

[aitaituo]

Scores are only comparable with other scores for the same nation, or nations with very similar starting positions.

Eh, it's not that hard to get into the top 10 of each category early on, even as a minor nation and then stay there comfortably by mid-game. There aren't a whole lot of countries that are inherently screwed in terms of score.

 

[Nephrahim]

Eh, it's not that hard to get into the top 10 of each category early on, even as a minor nation and then stay there comfortably by mid-game. There aren't a whole lot of countries that are inherently screwed in terms of score.

Non-European nations can have a tough time in the early game, especially if you're past ottoman level. In my japan game I've been fighting hard but might just barely get into the top 3 by the end-date, while in my England game I was well ahead of anyone by 1650.

 

[Mauer]

Non-European nations can have a tough time in the early game, especially if you're past ottoman level. In my japan game I've been fighting hard but might just barely get into the top 3 by the end-date, while in my England game I was well ahead of anyone by 1650.

England won EU4 IRL.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Eh, it's not that hard to get into the top 10 of each category early on, even as a minor nation and then stay there comfortably by mid-game. There aren't a whole lot of countries that are inherently screwed in terms of score.

Doesn't matter. With a nation near the top at the beginning, you'll have a large influx of points for 1/8 to 1/6 (in some cases more) of the game that there is no way a small nation in a crummy tech group can possibly manage.

Show me a 20k finish with Gwalior or Mongol Khanate.

 

[Tom013]

I unified Italy by like 1540 i think so what would you have done the remaining 280 years? The only thing you can do in EU IV is conquer.

Honestly? A lot of us would have quit, moved on. Maybe fooled around with dominating a bit into Germany, maybe messed around the rest of the Mediterranean, but if I had started a "unite Italy game" (which I have as OPM Ferrara) and done so and then further established myself as HRE by 1540 (which I also did), I probably would have moved on to a different country (I think that game currently sits somewhere in the late 1500s or early 1600s). A lot of us hit our goals and are done. I have yet to play a game to 1800... I think the furthest I have played was the late 1700s.

What he was saying is that this is all a matter of personal preference, and a lot of us don't find high scores and earth-sprawling empires to be the end-all. So defining "success" in EU4 is somewhat personal. Failure is easier -- end weaker than you started, or worse still, lose ALL your land, and you can probably call that a failure.

England won EU4 IRL.

According to Paradox, Spain won EU4, followed by France and then Great Britain. Great Britain unequivocally "wins" in Victoria though.

 

[delpiero1234]

Honestly? A lot of us would have quit, moved on.

I usually quit by 1650-1700, too but because I had played a complete round of EU IV I decided to play until 1821 and therefore the only thing I could have done was conquering everyone around me.

Also if so many people quit by 1700 then Paradox is doing something wrong considering the timeline ends in 1821 and not in 1700.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I usually quit by 1650-1700, too but because I had played a complete round of EU IV I decided to play until 1821 and therefore the only thing I could have done was conquering everyone around me.

Also if so many people quit by 1700 then Paradox is doing something wrong considering the timeline ends in 1821 and not in 1700.

The barriers to conquest are arbitrary and it really hits hard the later you get in the game.

 

[Golladan]

The barriers to conquest are arbitrary and it really hits hard the later you get in the game.

Not to mention that it gets to a point where nobody really poses a threat to you, so it just gets boring.

 

[Tom013]

I usually quit by 1650-1700, too but because I had played a complete round of EU IV I decided to play until 1821 and therefore the only thing I could have done was conquering everyone around me.

Also if so many people quit by 1700 then Paradox is doing something wrong considering the timeline ends in 1821 and not in 1700.

I don't know if it's wrong, per se, as the timeline is rather long and in a single player game, the AI has a hard time keeping up any challenge to a skilled player by the end. It would be nice if there were more to keep you involved and interested late game. I would certainly welcome improvements to the late-game...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not to mention that it gets to a point where nobody really poses a threat to you, so it just gets boring.

That hurts too. Basically, these factors all wear on people:

1. The game is a bit slower later on.
2. On top of that, There are fewer things you can actually do.
3. This results in more waiting.
4. There is little actual threat to your nation, so you don't need much planning.
5. The remaining targets are going to be slow to fight, and often you know exactly the kind of grind it will be.

This is one of the reasons the fake coalition wall was so grating (beat 200+ regiments easily, get very little each time, wait 5 years), but replacing that with long core times/and or other issues has a similar effect; in the end-game, it's just slow all around compared to the early game. Because of that, if you still want to play EU re-starting is typical.

 

[joak]

Less is more?

What do you do, get tons of vassals or just stop expanding and sit passively the rest of the game?

I unified Italy by like 1540 i think so what would you have done the remaining 280 years? The only thing you can do in EU IV is conquer.

Pretty much what Tom said. If I keep playing the game I'm doing it as an alt-history RPG-like thing. As Tom alluded to, I set a couple goals when I'm playing and see how well I can pull them off. At some point I transition into balance of power politics (e.g., cripple/contain France or an AI HRE emperor if they've gotten too big, rewarding allies, etc.) Also marshaling admin points to have a highly developed empire, spreading my culture to conquered lands, and so on. Not super challenging or anything, but then neither in conquest at that point, especially with the latest patch. You're just optimizing different aspects of your kingdom.

So in an Italy game I'd be more prone to remove my territory from the empire and piss everyone off rather than try and become emperor myself. Just a matter of taste.

Also if so many people quit by 1700 then Paradox is doing something wrong considering the timeline ends in 1821 and not in 1700.

That's on the assumption that starting with the "Grand Scenario" in the late middle ages is the "right" way to play. You can always start a game in 1700 and see how you do in the War of Spanish Succession or the Great Northern War.