I like to play grand strategy games before, and I love EU, since I have tried VIC2 through my friend's computer and played CK2 in a peaceful night. I find EU somewhat boring then. When EU4 is there I bought it and played for days. I dropped it finally. It is a better version of EU3 and much more balanced than games like VIC2 or CK2, with fewer bugs and more detailed mechanics, I admit, but still lack something so called SOUL.
Yes.
EU4 focus on a period when the world change rapidly, from medieval to renaissance then to enlightment then to early revolution era. That's good, however, bad. Comparing with other games, it has a too long time and too few feeling of the time it represented, which I mean, form CK2, I could say "this is medieval" and the same as VIC2 with the word "revolution", due to their "liege and vassal system" or "reform and revolution" system. While in EU4, I only manage my state's diplomacy and warfare. I expand, I develop, I make alliance, and I conquer. It's not bad, but now there are already so many games runs like that, no matter what background they are of. From Nobunaga's ambition to Galatic war, from ancient China 3 kingdoms games to Napolenic Era games, the same story have taken place every now and then, with different appearances but same core. There is no feeling about renaissance, enlightment or revolution. Just click button and achive the event and see a dialoge window. Some huge changes of the world then finished. It's so joking. The newly released CM expansion have introduced tribal system and viceroalty system, letting the world become live. We see tribals gradully changed to kingdoms or republics and feudal empires gradully changed to centrelized monachy, and what's more, with new play style appeared. In EU4, these also can be seen during gameplay, but the only thing changed is name and some statics.
It;s dissapointing.
I know I won't be agreed by many people here. I really drop the game, but sincerly hoping that one day I could get a real EU, which could finely represent the great time of changing.
Yes.
EU4 focus on a period when the world change rapidly, from medieval to renaissance then to enlightment then to early revolution era. That's good, however, bad. Comparing with other games, it has a too long time and too few feeling of the time it represented, which I mean, form CK2, I could say "this is medieval" and the same as VIC2 with the word "revolution", due to their "liege and vassal system" or "reform and revolution" system. While in EU4, I only manage my state's diplomacy and warfare. I expand, I develop, I make alliance, and I conquer. It's not bad, but now there are already so many games runs like that, no matter what background they are of. From Nobunaga's ambition to Galatic war, from ancient China 3 kingdoms games to Napolenic Era games, the same story have taken place every now and then, with different appearances but same core. There is no feeling about renaissance, enlightment or revolution. Just click button and achive the event and see a dialoge window. Some huge changes of the world then finished. It's so joking. The newly released CM expansion have introduced tribal system and viceroalty system, letting the world become live. We see tribals gradully changed to kingdoms or republics and feudal empires gradully changed to centrelized monachy, and what's more, with new play style appeared. In EU4, these also can be seen during gameplay, but the only thing changed is name and some statics.
It;s dissapointing.
I know I won't be agreed by many people here. I really drop the game, but sincerly hoping that one day I could get a real EU, which could finely represent the great time of changing.
Last edited:
