Why I still think EU is the worst one of PI's 4 major series

[LinusLinothorax]

I can understand the feelings of many people here. The game is indeed empty and some kind of linear. How often are you sitting several minutes before your computer, waiting that something is happening? Why is the game so flat? And why its so easy (I dont get people praising this game as ultra complex)?
I think a first step would be introducing the "Several religions/cultures per religion"- feature and make conversion much harder. Would atleast increase immersion and difficulty.

 

[hajutze]

Nothing in EU4 can compare to conquering India as the Khazars and converting it to judaism ...

 

[Hakuromatsu]

I think a first step would be introducing the "Several religions/cultures per religion"- feature and make conversion much harder. Would atleast increase immersion and difficulty.

The problem is, you do something like that and it's still a pale imitation of Vic 2's POP system. And the same would be true for dynastic trees and CK2. That's the thing about Vic 2 and CK2; they both take a few concepts and fly to the moon with them, whereas EU4 tries to tackle everything under the sun and winds up being a (relatively speaking) generic game as a result.

If Europa Universalis could find its niche like Vic 2 and CK2 have -- something that defines the time period -- it would be something that could stand on its own instead of being the bland flagship series. Like, for example, if it were to focus on just colonialism -- a time frame from 1420-1783, featuring special mechanics for exploration, settlement, the establishment and management of viceroyalties and chartered companies, papal politics with Inter caetera-style bulls, discovering and exploiting new goods, and dealing with your colonies' eventual revolution as a final boss. For example.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

The problem is, you do something like that and it's still a pale imitation of Vic 2's POP system. And the same would be true for dynastic trees and CK2. That's the thing about Vic 2 and CK2; they both take a few concepts and fly to the moon with them, whereas EU4 tries to tackle everything under the sun and winds up being a (relatively speaking) generic game as a result.

Well, in my opinion it wouldnt be an imitation. In Victoria you are doing complex population management, while my proposed system is only a way to depict religions/cultures in a more detailed way. It doesnt provide many gameplay-featueres but is helpful for the atmospere and realism.

 

[hajutze]

He does have a point. EU4 just doesn't have anything special that stands out.

 

[AureliusBob]

If Europa Universalis could find its niche like Vic 2 and CK2 have -- something that defines the time period -- it would be something that could stand on its own instead of being the bland flagship series. Like, for example, if it were to focus on just colonialism -- a time frame from 1420-1783, featuring special mechanics for exploration, settlement, the establishment and management of viceroyalties and chartered companies, papal politics with Inter caetera-style bulls, discovering and exploiting new goods, and dealing with your colonies' eventual revolution as a final boss. For example.

I agree, although I think expansion has been the theme of the EU series, but it feels like EU4 mechanics are becoming increasingly focused on limiting expansion.

I think the problem of EU4 is due to the inherent drawback of a DLC modular strategy....Paid features of previous DLC's can never be improved upon, thus creating a obligation for DLC to continually add new features in order to have something to sell. However, this makes EU4 extremely broad in scope, but shallow in depth...

 

[James The 1st]

Well said, I feel the same about the game. After around 600 hours in EU4 I feel bored.

I'd be shocked if you didn't feel board of any game after 600 hours

CK2 has quite a good peacitime gameplay, meaning that you have to pay attention to all those plots, dangerous factions. For perfectionists there is a good job: they can palce their dynasty on every single count and higher position in their realm. Also your small kingdom can me as powerful as a neighboring empire if you prefer to spend money on building castles, towns and temples. But warfare is completely dumb (especially no naval combat) if compared to EU4.

CK2 "peacetime" gameplay is very bland. All you do is wait around for money for buildings, and play whack-a-mole with rebellious vassals by moving your chancellor and spymaster around.

 

[DC123456789]

He does have a point. EU4 just doesn't have anything special that stands out.

Yes, that's really the focus of the problem IMO.

 

[Mikalos]

The problem is, you do something like that and it's still a pale imitation of Vic 2's POP system. And the same would be true for dynastic trees and CK2. That's the thing about Vic 2 and CK2; they both take a few concepts and fly to the moon with them, whereas EU4 tries to tackle everything under the sun and winds up being a (relatively speaking) generic game as a result.

If Europa Universalis could find its niche like Vic 2 and CK2 have -- something that defines the time period -- it would be something that could stand on its own instead of being the bland flagship series. Like, for example, if it were to focus on just colonialism -- a time frame from 1420-1783, featuring special mechanics for exploration, settlement, the establishment and management of viceroyalties and chartered companies, papal politics with Inter caetera-style bulls, discovering and exploiting new goods, and dealing with your colonies' eventual revolution as a final boss. For example.

yes but then we'd need something to do for the period between 1783 - 1836,and we shouldnt be expecting a second march of the eagles

also, why 1783, most of the colonial rebellions didnt even happen til the 1800's

 

[Hakuromatsu]

yes but then we'd need something to do for the period between 1783 - 1836,and we shouldnt be expecting a second march of the eagles

also, why 1783, most of the colonial rebellions didnt even happen til the 1800's

End of the American Revolution? :shrug:

That was an offhand idea and not the point of my post.

 

[Mikalos]

End of the American Revolution? :shrug:

That was an offhand idea and not the point of my post.

you suggested an end point, i called foul on your "just the colonization!" idea, there was more to this period than just colonization.

also, everybodies stupid obsession with undercutting the CK2 endtime and giving paradox no reason to encourage a overhaul of lategame ck2.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

also, everybodies stupid obsession with undercutting the CK2 endtime and giving paradox no reason to encourage a overhaul of lategame ck2.

Shh, it's a conspiracy.

 

[Mikalos]

i just want my lategame ck2 to be fun ;-;

especially since the mongols get distracted halfway to the caspian and forget about that whole conquest thing.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

i just want my lategame ck2 to be fun ;-;

especially since the mongols get distracted halfway to the caspian and forget about that whole conquest thing.

Even the Aztecs derped out in Britain in my last game with Sunset Invasion on...

Yeah, CK2 and EU4 both have pretty boring endgames. At least EU4 has a better revolution target mechanic now, even if it needs a bit of work.

 

[bbad89]

Thinking about this makes me want Victoria 3, mainly because while I understand most of Victoria 2, playing it is incredibly difficult for me.

 

[Mikalos]

Thinking about this makes me want Victoria 3, mainly because while I understand most of Victoria 2, playing it is incredibly difficult for me.

mopst people are saying iut'll come next once HOI 4 is out

 

[Iamdead7]

There needs to be functionality to make expansion in Europe itself relatively little after a certain time period and then focus even further on the revolution mechanic so that you either face the revolution as a final boss or ARE the revolution and you must fight all of Europe, like how CK2 has the Mongols and Aztecs as final bosses and Vicky 2 has World War One, EU needs the revolution to be a big thing, and for that to happen it needs to be a lot harder to expand in europe so theres actually countries to fight at the end.

 

[Huanglukuzhu]

I agree on the idea that divide EU into 2 games, one focus on renaissance and enlightment (1444-1700) and the other focus on warfare and revolution (1700- 1810).

 

[Zak Preston]

I agree on the idea that divide EU into 2 games, one focus on renaissance and enlightment (1444-1700) and the other focus on warfare and revolution (1700- 1810).

Why shouldn't EU4 have those features?

 

[Huanglukuzhu]

You have said all I want to say in paragraph 3 with better organized words, but you've said something I didn't notice before in paragraph 2.