What's a good score to finish a game?

[aitaituo]

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.

Mongol Khanate would be pretty tough given that you're a vassal and surrounded by just three much more powerful countries. I'll give Gwalior a try when I finish my Ming game, since I've been meaning to do an Indian game.

The trick is to get high stability, powerful allies, and a couple generals early on when the smaller modifiers are still comparable across tech groups. Then get to be a major regional power ASAP for the provinces and armies. Since score goes up over time, the key is to just get into the top 5 early on so you don't have to play catch up too much and be aggressive enough that you're a major power by 1550 and can remain comfortably in the top three in one or two categories until your ready to take your rightful place at the head of the world.

 

[sunsterson]

I would say that Spain won eu4 over the time period, but f
Gb was more powerful near the end of the timeline.

I'd actually say Germany won the Vic2 timeline

 

[jrgen3]

I would say that Spain won eu4 over the time period, but f
Gb was more powerful near the end of the timeline.

I'd actually say Germany won the Vic2 timeline

UK or US won Victoria 2 timeline. Germany ended up loosing all their colonies and they were split in half 20 years before the end.

 

[Carbon]

I would say that Spain won eu4 over the time period, but f
Gb was more powerful near the end of the timeline.

I'd actually say Germany won the Vic2 timeline

Spain won by score because score is accumulated and isn't based on rank. By the end of the time period, UK was so dominant the era is sometimes referred to as "Pax Britannica". I guess it boils down to what you mean by "won".

Germany definitely did not win Vic2 timeline because 'Murica.

 

[Pellucid]

Wait, there's a SCORE in this game?!?

...wait, there's an END to this game?!?!?

 

[jrgen3]

...wait, there's an END to this game?!?!?

I honestly don't know. I have heard rumours of it, but I have never seen it myself

 

[RadRussian]

There is a meaning to end game with Coalitions. Since 1.4, when I played as major powers, no one declared war on me. I believe we need strong foes in the end game but also worthy rewards, not like 3-4 provinces.

 

[petertel123]

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

Great britain ended on top, but spain was the strongest and most succesful nation for the majority of the timeframe, that's why Spain is on top

 

[SuperSFX]

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.

I'd like to see it crumble. My empire is ruled with an iron fist >=O What do you think those 800k troops are for?

Also, to the comments pertaining to the end of the game becoming boring... that's at least a similar situation in CK2. Start in 871, most people can conquer all of the visible world by the actual start date of 1066. I've never actually completed a game of CK2. I could have conquered everyone but once I reached the point where I knew I could, I just stopped. I think its more of an issue of having unrealistic expectations for the timeline of the game. Also, the game is much more interesting when the other countries you are facing off against are also controlled by humans.

 

[vranasm]

I think this game needs some "you won" dialog with the ability to play further at certain conditions. I could speculate on some, but that's not the point.

in Civ you could play to 2050, but the game got infinitely better when Sid included victory conditions in later editions.

 

[delpiero1234]

Wait, there's a SCORE in this game?!?

...wait, there's an END to this game?!?!?

Yes.

There is a meaning to end game with Coalitions. Since 1.4, when I played as major powers, no one declared war on me. I believe we need strong foes in the end game but also worthy rewards, not like 3-4 provinces.

In the game this thread is about. France, Russia, Denmark and Lithuania declared 4 separate wars on me in the last decade of the game. If there were annoying coalitions like in 1.3 then I am very sure I would have quit the game out of boredom by 1600.

 

[Tom013]

I'd like to see it crumble. My empire is ruled with an iron fist >=O What do you think those 800k troops are for?

Haha... well, Joak's stipulations of a mish-mash of nationalities and internal division and his reference to "increasing industrialization over the next century" screams "VICTORIA 2!!!" And if you translated that set-up into Victoria 2, that would make you the focal point of international crises and a hotbed of political discord. Basically, he's speculating that you should suffer the same struggles as the Ottomans and the Austrian Empire but magnified. Of course, EU4 represents cultures in such abstractions that this would never happen under its rules.

Also, to the comments pertaining to the end of the game becoming boring... that's at least a similar situation in CK2. Start in 871, most people can conquer all of the visible world by the actual start date of 1066. I've never actually completed a game of CK2. I could have conquered everyone but once I reached the point where I knew I could, I just stopped. I think its more of an issue of having unrealistic expectations for the timeline of the game.

Yup.

Also, the game is much more interesting when the other countries you are facing off against are also controlled by humans.

That's wholly a personal preference, but I get what you're saying.

I think this game needs some "you won" dialog with the ability to play further at certain conditions. I could speculate on some, but that's not the point.

in Civ you could play to 2050, but the game got infinitely better when Sid included victory conditions in later editions.

But what would a win condition BE for this game? You would, presumably have to mold it to the nation being played... and probably somewhat to the player's desires. Then it's basically what we all do for ourselves anyway: set a goal and go after it. I just don't see how you put a win condition on EU4. Some games aren't meant to be "won."

 

[vranasm]

But what would a win condition BE for this game? You would, presumably have to mold it to the nation being played... and probably somewhat to the player's desires. Then it's basically what we all do for ourselves anyway: set a goal and go after it. I just don't see how you put a win condition on EU4. Some games aren't meant to be "won."

I could offer some examples if there is really some big desire, but I don't think it's necessary until PI says they fish for some ideas how the victory conditions should look.

maybe we could start with some practical example from HOI III? But I would like a bit more and different ones then "just" holding specific provinces...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mongol Khanate would be pretty tough given that you're a vassal and surrounded by just three much more powerful countries. I'll give Gwalior a try when I finish my Ming game, since I've been meaning to do an Indian game.

None of them will ally you, either, although Ming will almost universally grant you military access and then otherwise do nothing. Once you shake loose you might be able to get Tibet as an ally, and even though they suck their terrain is murder so they're a good troop sink vs Oirate.

I believe we need strong foes in the end game but also worthy rewards, not like 3-4 provinces.

I believe that also, but Johan basically flat-out said he isn't changing the war score mechanics. I'd be very interested to see his justification for leaving them as-is though . The most rational thing would be to just scale war score on coalitions like you do for giant nations, and allow total nation wipeouts in the peace deal. Effectively, make coalitions fight AND make peace as one giant country, such that beating one you can put yourself into 300% overextension just like a war vs Ming or late-game Russia.

Basically:

Good coalition mechanics > no coalitions > 1.3 coalition mechanics.

 

[delpiero1234]

Basically:

Good coalition mechanics > no coalitions > 1.3 coalition mechanics.

It's weird that Johan wants to keep the current war score mechanics. They are completely absurd - especially for large nations. There is no reward for beating a (mighty) coalition.

 

[wolfing]

the best score is the one for the game in which you had the most fun.

Also, the game is much more interesting when the other countries you are facing off against are also controlled by humans.

Now this is a matter of personal opinion. I much prefer playing against the AI than against humans, for many reasons, but the main reason is that I don't have to 'powergame'. I can roleplay my country, not do things in the most optimal way or exploit systems (like feeding vassals back in the day), but against humans, if I don't powergame, the others will and will obliterate me.