Why I still think EU is the worst one of PI's 4 major series
- Thread starter Huanglukuzhu
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I believe the EU series is often held up as PI's flagship title and as such is the one most new players are likely to try first. Taking this into account it makes sense, from a design perspective, that it would be less complicated than other titles. The reason being if you turn off 1st time players with an overly complicated title they are unlikely to buy any further titles. I can say from personal experience that EU4 was my first PI game which I liked and ended up buying CK2 and will buy HOI4 when released.
I would say one thing though, oversimplification can destroy a franchise and in my opinion this has happened through successive iterations of both Total War and Civ.
I would say one thing though, oversimplification can destroy a franchise and in my opinion this has happened through successive iterations of both Total War and Civ.
Last edited:
To be fair if you clocked 600 hours before getting bored, I would call that a great sucess as a dev. I can count on one hand the number of games I have clocked 600+ hours on.
For me it's the best one
HoI is too limited in its timeframe, I never had any urge to play the game. Vic2 is a lot of fun, played it a lot, but the POP system was too much micromanagement to be fun, as far as I remember. And CK I gave many many tries but the UI and handling is not just awkward but sometimes just bad (even though the concept is fun and I very much would like to like it)
EU4, as streamlined as some might call it, is just tons of fun. Way over 3000 hours and not bored a bit. Sometimes when I want to take a break from the game, I come across a let's play and immediately get hooked or get an idea to start with a new nation and a new goal. Yes the gameplays resemble each others but seeing the world change is like reading an epic novel and/or getting a history lesson every time over. I could just watch and be happy, actively participating is perfection
HoI is too limited in its timeframe, I never had any urge to play the game. Vic2 is a lot of fun, played it a lot, but the POP system was too much micromanagement to be fun, as far as I remember. And CK I gave many many tries but the UI and handling is not just awkward but sometimes just bad (even though the concept is fun and I very much would like to like it)
EU4, as streamlined as some might call it, is just tons of fun. Way over 3000 hours and not bored a bit. Sometimes when I want to take a break from the game, I come across a let's play and immediately get hooked or get an idea to start with a new nation and a new goal. Yes the gameplays resemble each others but seeing the world change is like reading an epic novel and/or getting a history lesson every time over. I could just watch and be happy, actively participating is perfection
a lot has been done to make EU better, but I agree, it cant compare to the awesomeness that is vicky.
But there are a lot of very simple things that can be done to increase immersion, like something as simple as creating different UI's for different tech groups. You can say what you want about total war, but all the cultures in their game feel really different to me (in R:TW you had a mostly wood UI for barbarians, with event pictures that really captured their culture, albeit with a bit of stereotyping).
Other things that can be done include different music for different regions (current music is nice, but extremely generic), conquest of constantinople music pack was a nice start but it needs to be expanded upon.
These are obviously just visual/audio improvements, a LOT needs to be done to really model the change of your country from a medieval feudal kingdom to a modern nation state.
But there are a lot of very simple things that can be done to increase immersion, like something as simple as creating different UI's for different tech groups. You can say what you want about total war, but all the cultures in their game feel really different to me (in R:TW you had a mostly wood UI for barbarians, with event pictures that really captured their culture, albeit with a bit of stereotyping).
Other things that can be done include different music for different regions (current music is nice, but extremely generic), conquest of constantinople music pack was a nice start but it needs to be expanded upon.
These are obviously just visual/audio improvements, a LOT needs to be done to really model the change of your country from a medieval feudal kingdom to a modern nation state.
we dont need UI for every culture, id rather we just have one good looking UI instead of 50 mediocre
I play casual not to wc so that is my bias/ymmv.
Art of war changed that for me at least now.
no assassination and nerfed retinue killed ck2 for me. Haven't wanted to play it since char came out.
simply put I liked that it was different than eu4 and it wasn't Srs bsns like eu4 and was laid back.
plot assassination wasn't balanced for its removal.
Art of war make it so I don't have to own half of the world to stay competitive with trade/money/manpower anymore.
I haven't had this much fun in eu4 since 1.3.
Art of war changed that for me at least now.
no assassination and nerfed retinue killed ck2 for me. Haven't wanted to play it since char came out.
simply put I liked that it was different than eu4 and it wasn't Srs bsns like eu4 and was laid back.
plot assassination wasn't balanced for its removal.
Art of war make it so I don't have to own half of the world to stay competitive with trade/money/manpower anymore.
I haven't had this much fun in eu4 since 1.3.
i love when people bitch about retinues in ck2
"oh no, my completely out of place standing doom force can't happen anymore, i ACTUALLY have to play like a medieval feudal state!"
"oh no, my completely out of place standing doom force can't happen anymore, i ACTUALLY have to play like a medieval feudal state!"
EU4 is definitely the worst overall. For starters, the period dates are all wrong, for one thing. CK2 had ok dates until they expanded back to 867 and then even farther to 769. EU4 running from 1444 to 1820 makes no sense. Feudalism didn't exist at all in the 700s and 800s, and ironically was alive and well in 1444. It's an absolute travesty that CK2 starts in 769 now.
"CK" should go from 1066 to 1519 or so. It'd be better if it went to 1600 but then what to do about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, Portugal in Macau, etc. 1519/1520 is a great year to cut off and begin "EU" - Sulemain the Magnificent takes power in the Ottoman Empire, you can start the game with the Spanish invasion of Mexico, Charles V becomes HRE, Magellan circumnavigates the world, the Reformation is about to start (Luther is about to be excommunicated in 1520, Diet of Worms in 1521), Italian renaissance is basically over, etc.
But EU4 is really the worst because so many things are going on that should be represented but aren't. You have the rise and fall of absolutism in the 17th and 18th centuries, plus the beginning of industrialization in the late 18th century as well as the French Revolution/rise of Napoleon, the last dynastic succession in China, etc. The irony is that EU is the least detailed, most abstracted "war-gamey" game of the three (CK, EU, Vicky), but it's one of the worst periods to do that in. There's so much going on that EU just ends up ignoring most of it except as a few random modifiers and crappy meta-game events (Peasant's Wars, Liberalism, "Revolution"), and sticking to extreme map-painting. That's why it's the worst game of all of them: it represents the period so poorly.
"CK" should go from 1066 to 1519 or so. It'd be better if it went to 1600 but then what to do about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, Portugal in Macau, etc. 1519/1520 is a great year to cut off and begin "EU" - Sulemain the Magnificent takes power in the Ottoman Empire, you can start the game with the Spanish invasion of Mexico, Charles V becomes HRE, Magellan circumnavigates the world, the Reformation is about to start (Luther is about to be excommunicated in 1520, Diet of Worms in 1521), Italian renaissance is basically over, etc.
But EU4 is really the worst because so many things are going on that should be represented but aren't. You have the rise and fall of absolutism in the 17th and 18th centuries, plus the beginning of industrialization in the late 18th century as well as the French Revolution/rise of Napoleon, the last dynastic succession in China, etc. The irony is that EU is the least detailed, most abstracted "war-gamey" game of the three (CK, EU, Vicky), but it's one of the worst periods to do that in. There's so much going on that EU just ends up ignoring most of it except as a few random modifiers and crappy meta-game events (Peasant's Wars, Liberalism, "Revolution"), and sticking to extreme map-painting. That's why it's the worst game of all of them: it represents the period so poorly.
It sounds like there's a lot of expectation for eu4 to cover these grand designs that it currently does not, such as industrialism, liberalism, imperialism, centralization, etc. If you look at it as just a conquest and map whoring game, it seems to work. I also look at it as the simpler game; far more easy to get into than say ck2 and without a lot of the tedium. In ck2, ruler dying is game devastating at times (gavelkind without gaming inheritance, for instance) while in eu4, aside from being PU'd, it's a whopping -1 stab and some stat changes. It's a simple game with simple goals, and if you don't expect it to be as grand as the others, it's nice for that reason.
The "too easy" complaint has merit, but almost any game can fall in the category. What single player games can't be mastered? The solution is usually always to replace ai opponents with humans (multiplayer in this case) or to set goals that hamstring yourself deliberately. If you're someone who needs ironman to prevent yourself from cheating, the latter isn't going to be an option, and if you don't like multiplayer... this game will eventually be too easy and suck.
Sure, let me be the first to admit I despise currently how coalitions work; they need to form based on total power not expansion and relative gain. Coalitions should be used like they were historically to check rampant growth and curb a runaway for dominating too much, which might make it far harder to world conquest... but that's beside the point. The game is simpler AND less random, therefore it's easier. I like my easy game. I played the hell out of ck2 but am basically done with it; I despise the tedium and the game moving progressively backwards (timeline) has just frustrated the point. I feel like I'm playing sims with my family and being a raging douche to my younger sons and vassals for 90% of my time, and actually doing fun military things for 10%. Better game is relative; eu4 is the one game here (admittedly I don't play hoi) that I can load up rip roarin drunk and have a grand ol time.
I would absolutely love an alternative game that focuses more on internals. Same time period, with a heavier focus on the small things - levies and reserves, mobilization time, standing armies or not, mercs come from somewhere, detailed centralizing, evolving cultural identity, you name it. I'd like if the game had so many checks on rapid expansion and government control that world conquest was effectively impossible. I'd love if trade was a brutally complex system, was in no way some zero-sum nonsense that it is now, that could be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, and took hundreds of hours to truly master. I'd like if colonization was even worse. This game would be awesome. I'd still take a break from it to play simpler eu4.
The "too easy" complaint has merit, but almost any game can fall in the category. What single player games can't be mastered? The solution is usually always to replace ai opponents with humans (multiplayer in this case) or to set goals that hamstring yourself deliberately. If you're someone who needs ironman to prevent yourself from cheating, the latter isn't going to be an option, and if you don't like multiplayer... this game will eventually be too easy and suck.
Sure, let me be the first to admit I despise currently how coalitions work; they need to form based on total power not expansion and relative gain. Coalitions should be used like they were historically to check rampant growth and curb a runaway for dominating too much, which might make it far harder to world conquest... but that's beside the point. The game is simpler AND less random, therefore it's easier. I like my easy game. I played the hell out of ck2 but am basically done with it; I despise the tedium and the game moving progressively backwards (timeline) has just frustrated the point. I feel like I'm playing sims with my family and being a raging douche to my younger sons and vassals for 90% of my time, and actually doing fun military things for 10%. Better game is relative; eu4 is the one game here (admittedly I don't play hoi) that I can load up rip roarin drunk and have a grand ol time.
I would absolutely love an alternative game that focuses more on internals. Same time period, with a heavier focus on the small things - levies and reserves, mobilization time, standing armies or not, mercs come from somewhere, detailed centralizing, evolving cultural identity, you name it. I'd like if the game had so many checks on rapid expansion and government control that world conquest was effectively impossible. I'd love if trade was a brutally complex system, was in no way some zero-sum nonsense that it is now, that could be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, and took hundreds of hours to truly master. I'd like if colonization was even worse. This game would be awesome. I'd still take a break from it to play simpler eu4.
How does it?
CK2 or Vickys mechanics dont change halfway through the game? They are exactly the same to EU4 in this regard.
Could you explain what you mean by saying they are different games at beginning to end? I'm intrigued!
.png){kind=avatar}
Exactly my thoughts. The price per hours played ratio for this game is pretty low for EU4, the only games I've ever had that were comparable were Minecraft and a few Pokemon games. EU4 must be doing something good because I've played Victoria II and it bores me much sooner. I haven't racked up nearly as much playtime as EU4. Don't have much experience with CKII but it looks like it would be comparable.
I don't know about CKII but Victoria II does have the Great Wars that unlock about midway through. Doesn't make it a brand new game in my opinion though.
No, that's my point. thats a new feature, it doesnt drastically change the way the game is played.
I would not call it a great success as a dev. I would call it a potential waste of time or a smart purchase by the customer. Success for the dev would entail the customer continuing to buy the dev's products as a result of past good products. EUIV has not convinced me to buy any more products in this franchise.
To carry it further, let me start by stating that I think Vicky 2 with HoD(and PDM for that matter) is one of the best games I've ever played. However, It's is pretty apparent to me as a customer that Paradox has a bad habit of releasing bland vanilla products that take time to mature. At the least, I most certainly will never pre-order another Paradox product and this includes Vicky 3. Who knows, maybe EUIV will one day have some depth. IF that does happen, I will wait for a bargain bin sale to get all the other DLCs.
For everyone saying Europa Universalis lacks period - specifi stuff when compared with CK/Vicky:
the problem is: Victoria, Crusader Kings and Hearts of Iron all cover periods of history + geographical areas where there is some kind of universalisation and it is possible to focus on particular thematic mechanics:
in Crusader Kings you have Feudal Europe, Feudal Islam World and Feudal India of medieval era, so you can clearly focus on dynasty/knights/stuff
in Hearts of Iron you have literally one particular war, World War II, so obviously theme is clear and 100% coherent
in Victoria II you have INDUSTRIALIZATON and MODERNITY, while the game covers the entire world it is about the period when everything was 'universalized' by Europe
Now look at Europa Universalis.
1) It covers the entire world:
- Western European thalassocracies
- absolute monarchies
- Orthodox world
- Islam World
- India divided by Islam and Hinduism
- post-medieval Steppe Hordes
- South East Asia divided on various political entities having nothing common with bureaucratic concepts of Europe
- China which is so sophisticated it is like separate continent
- Japan which is different from literally all other countries in the planet in this period (Edo, Mejii)
- Subsaharan Africa with its tribes
- Pre-Colombian American Civilisations being completely alien for the rest of the world, developing in completely different way
- various tribes struggling for survival
2) It covers the period of:
- reformation
- exploration era
- American Indian fight for survival
- rise of mercantilism
- rise of capitalism
- rise of absolute monarchies
- fall of absolute monarchies
- revolutions
- religious wars in Europe
- fade of Islam
- fade of Steppe Hordes
- complete chaos and great changes in Africa
- rise of Transatlantic Trade
- stagnation of China
- dramatic fight of two religions in India
- renaissance, baroque, enlightenment (in Europe)
- rise of industrialization
- lot of stuff happening outside of Europe I don't know about due to my Eurocentric ignorant education
Good luck representing all of that in a computer game!
the problem is: Victoria, Crusader Kings and Hearts of Iron all cover periods of history + geographical areas where there is some kind of universalisation and it is possible to focus on particular thematic mechanics:
in Crusader Kings you have Feudal Europe, Feudal Islam World and Feudal India of medieval era, so you can clearly focus on dynasty/knights/stuff
in Hearts of Iron you have literally one particular war, World War II, so obviously theme is clear and 100% coherent
in Victoria II you have INDUSTRIALIZATON and MODERNITY, while the game covers the entire world it is about the period when everything was 'universalized' by Europe
Now look at Europa Universalis.
1) It covers the entire world:
- Western European thalassocracies
- absolute monarchies
- Orthodox world
- Islam World
- India divided by Islam and Hinduism
- post-medieval Steppe Hordes
- South East Asia divided on various political entities having nothing common with bureaucratic concepts of Europe
- China which is so sophisticated it is like separate continent
- Japan which is different from literally all other countries in the planet in this period (Edo, Mejii)
- Subsaharan Africa with its tribes
- Pre-Colombian American Civilisations being completely alien for the rest of the world, developing in completely different way
- various tribes struggling for survival
2) It covers the period of:
- reformation
- exploration era
- American Indian fight for survival
- rise of mercantilism
- rise of capitalism
- rise of absolute monarchies
- fall of absolute monarchies
- revolutions
- religious wars in Europe
- fade of Islam
- fade of Steppe Hordes
- complete chaos and great changes in Africa
- rise of Transatlantic Trade
- stagnation of China
- dramatic fight of two religions in India
- renaissance, baroque, enlightenment (in Europe)
- rise of industrialization
- lot of stuff happening outside of Europe I don't know about due to my Eurocentric ignorant education
Good luck representing all of that in a computer game!
I believe what he means is that there is a pronounced shift in gameplay every few decades in Vicky 2.
1836-1860ish: low manpower, small scale European wars usually related to establishing spheres of influence/protectorates. directing your POPs to procreate faster, be better researchers and getting some early infrastructure up and running. Molding your electorate.
1860ish-1900ish: Wars begin to drastically favor the defender as entrenchment and fort levels become increasingly difficult for attackers. Race for Africa. Industry is rolling along and you are working on attracting immigrants.
1900ish-endgame: Wars are insanely bloody due to large regular armies and enormous reserves, Aeroplanes and tanks make forts and entrenchment almost useless. Economies are booming. Most social reforms have been passed and you should have enough strength to peel some of your rivals' colonies away, if you don't have PDM. If you do, then forcing Great Britain/France to concede a Great War defeat is really fun.
My dates may not be perfect, but the notion remains true. The shifts are pronounced, but they flow very well into one another. You are hardly, if ever, left twiddling your thumbs to do something, especially if you are state capitalism or planned economy.
Most importantly it explores a lot of its mechanics rather deeply compared to EUIV. The colonial game is fun. Economy building is fun. elections are not fun, but at least they have real repercussions. fighting over immigrants is fun. War itself isn't particularly deep, but planning ahead for war is.
Edit: Oh, and Vicky 2 isn't balanced in the sense that EUIV is. It is balanced in the sense that very bad things can happen to the starting powers. As I stated earlier, forcing France to release all of her worldwide colonies AND Occitania is hilariously fulfilling. Siding with the CSA as Mexico(or anyone that can be of real help) in the American Civil war is similarly fun. Some countries, like Norway, are fun if they achieve small goals like re-establishing the Kalmar Union, or forming/surviving as Poland from Krakow.
In EUIV, anything short of a WC is unimpressive, and even then...
Last edited:
That's exactly why we're saying to not represent all of that. Pick a few of the things you listed and run with those, not try to do all of it and leave it half-baked by necessity. There's no way Pdox can make every nation, every start from 1444-1820, and every style of play viable and fun in its own right. No dev could do that.
I haven't played through very many full CK games and I haven't played CM so I can't say as much about it, but at least by starting in later dates one can see realms as much more centralized and powerful, and provinces more built up and expanded, than they were in the beginning of the game. The political landscape transforms as Pagans either convert or reform their faiths, changing (at least some of the time) loose tribal regions into monarchies. The unlocking of Crusade and Jihad mechanics also has an impact but that's less important.
Victoria, though, is incredibly different. Europe's states start out as absolute monarchies with little to no voting rights. Most have very, very limited industry. The beginning of the game is all about setting the stage for the future: establishing a literate population, bureaucratic efficiency, etc. Diplomacy is limited as you're only allowed one great-power ally, and you don't have many tools to control the world around you, not having unlocked the technologies that allow rapid expansion of the sphere of influence. Tax income is low and mostly comes from the poor classes farming and laboring. There aren't any options for colonization outside of picking off the occasional unciv, and wars between great powers are fairly rare unless instigated by the player.
By the 1860s-70s, basic industry is established and the player has had to make numerous choices about how to progress. Did they invest in their economy directly through state capitalism or go laissez-faire? By this point most income is still coming from the poor anyway, but developing countries have established capitalists and good literacy. European countries also tend to be shifting toward democracy as well, and great-power competition begins to pick up as Africa's colonization opens and Italy & Germany proceed toward formation.
By 1900 the world has been completely transformed. Developed European economies are mostly industrialized, with most tax income coming from the rich capitalist class. Literacy is increased to the maximum, and all efforts go into competition with other great powers as alliances are no longer limited to one per great power. Usually by this point crises are firing off all the time and wars, even world wars, become decently common in which the map sees huge changes. The player gets more choices for government as Fascism and Communism unlock and revolutions occasionally take out an AI government as well. Most of the world outside of Europe finishes westernizing, adding another layer to the politics and economy of the game.
On the military side of things, you go from tiny armies lumped together into a few stacks in 1840 to, for the player at least, titanic armies covering every province bordering the enemy in a line. Navies transform as well, from wooden ships to ones made of metal, requiring significant continual investment to keep up.
The mechanics of Victoria don't change,* but the number of variables interacting with one another are so great that as each aspect evolves it impacts each other aspect to create a different experience. Fighting a war in 1840 is entirely unlike fighting a war in 1900, both in terms of the number and type of units involved and the strategies one might be trying to pursue using those units. There is some change in this respect with EU: First getting cannons is exciting because they're a unique tool you can use to make sieges go much more quickly, but soon they just become a standard part of every army for the next 300 years, and it goes back to being just like 1444 again with armies running around trying to kill one another and occupy provinces. The way you use armies in late game is different, but not by much. The main difference is only in their size.
*With some important exceptions: The unlocking of the colonization of Africa, Great Wars, loss of restrictions on alliances, new ideologies, plus surely some others that I'm forgetting.
This problem is also in Crusader Kings II's technologies, in which the Catholics are the most advanced in the world at later start-dates, and where Muslims are inferior to Byzantines at all start-dates, although at least the game doesn't exactly railroad those technology levels in actual gameplay (although Byzantium regularly remains the most advanced part of the world, as long as it isn't conquered.)
for all these people doing a "split it nto two games!" how do you handle contiunation games, where my europe may not be anywhere near top of the world