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.
Same as CK2, especially after the releasing of CM.
In early game, the map are mostly coverd with different tribes, a new kind of government, strong in military and bad in stability, and the world is a chaos world. Later games also change with the invasion of Mongolians and newly introduced Imperial Law. It will gain players the allowance of assign viceroyalties and free revokation. Most realms in game are unified and centrenlized. Diplomacy gains its importance.
I love Victoria 2. The pop mechanics allow an amazing amount of depth to the game, and it allows it to emerge organically instead of having to implement a new mechanic for each situation. Sure there's a few weakness, like no real representation of trade, but overall its a great mechanic, and the pop mechanics is really its heart and soul.
But at the same time, its obviously impossible for something similar to happen in EU4; the pop mechanics mean that creating a single scenario is an enormous amount of work, and consumes enough resources to be an entire game in itself. There simply isn't enough demographic data to implement it in EU4.
However, I agree that EU4 should have SOMETHING that sets it apart. CK2 has its characters, Victoria 2 has its pop, while EU4 has lots of (by comparison) small unique mechanics like trade or the Holy Roman Empire, none of which are enough of a core mechanic to be the backbone of the game. But its difficult to see what could, in the time period.
Maybe it would work if they really fleshed out EU4's diplomatic system. It reflects a time period which was characterized by all sorts of alliance systems, but right now EU4's diplomacy is less complex than the sphere and crisis systems of Victoria 2 (although those aren't always complex in a good way).
But at the same time, its obviously impossible for something similar to happen in EU4; the pop mechanics mean that creating a single scenario is an enormous amount of work, and consumes enough resources to be an entire game in itself. There simply isn't enough demographic data to implement it in EU4.
However, I agree that EU4 should have SOMETHING that sets it apart. CK2 has its characters, Victoria 2 has its pop, while EU4 has lots of (by comparison) small unique mechanics like trade or the Holy Roman Empire, none of which are enough of a core mechanic to be the backbone of the game. But its difficult to see what could, in the time period.
Maybe it would work if they really fleshed out EU4's diplomatic system. It reflects a time period which was characterized by all sorts of alliance systems, but right now EU4's diplomacy is less complex than the sphere and crisis systems of Victoria 2 (although those aren't always complex in a good way).
I am glad they nerfed retinues....
but I stopped playing one of the earlier patches where they nerfed levies (which made retinues way better for armies) Whack-a-mole with the nerf hammer anyone? (Why not just buff levies again?)
The new (new as in, coming out a year ago or something?) tech mechanics in CKII are really terrible. Nomads building Cathedrals? Sorry Johan, bad idea
I am suprised by all the Vicky 2 love in this thread lol
I like Vicky a lot, but boy does it have a lot of problems, like bug problems/mechanic problems that simply are not being addressed.
I wouldn't say it's the worst, but it's the one which has the most unused potential. Chamboozer wrote a very good post why this is the case. At the moment, the player makes the game different; for example, if you are going to unite Italy with Florence, you will first focus on the Italian peninsula, then you may defend against Austria, France and the Ottomans, and in the last part, you may establish some colonies or trading companies. But the "ambiente" is always the same. Only the Reformation has a long-time impact; and in my last game with AoW, there were some revolutions, but none of them were successfull. The inner transformation from feudalism to the modern state would be such a great and complex system of it's own, but if I remember correctly, Paradox didn't want to do anything in this direction.
Well, and culture. Culture doesn't play any role in the game. Only some abstract prestige in some events. It has no impact at all. If you are playing the small, but fine court of Saxony or reign the vast steppes... doesn't change anything. In Vicky, you can "win" a game without going to war. In EU, everything centers around war. That makes peace so boring. If there was a peaceful option which would resolve around inventing something extraordinary - like the opera, baroque art, enlightened philosophy - or have some really great men at your court (making even great powers envious) to give you some "cultural score"... it would give EU IV another drive.
Well, and culture. Culture doesn't play any role in the game. Only some abstract prestige in some events. It has no impact at all. If you are playing the small, but fine court of Saxony or reign the vast steppes... doesn't change anything. In Vicky, you can "win" a game without going to war. In EU, everything centers around war. That makes peace so boring. If there was a peaceful option which would resolve around inventing something extraordinary - like the opera, baroque art, enlightened philosophy - or have some really great men at your court (making even great powers envious) to give you some "cultural score"... it would give EU IV another drive.
I'd agree with you if the victoria 2 influence system wasn't terrible enough to suck all enjoyment out of that game for me. Barring that I do find eu the least engaging of paradox's gsgs.
I also like Vicky and often play it. But come on, most of the time is spent just waiting for stuff to happen because there's nothing else to do.
This!
You can own all quite abundant (in modern times) Caucasus provinces or fertile chernozem steppes, but they will stay crappy 1-3 BT trashprovinces.
Same counts for EU4.I also like Vicky and often play it. But come on, most of the time is spent just waiting for stuff to happen because there's nothing else to do.
After thinking a bit, i came to the conclusion that it is a major problem that every nation feels the same. Doesnt matter if one plays France or Congo. No unique ui's, no unique mechanics. ROTW nations are technically only European nations, just in shitty.
Last edited:
This statement make me think you haven't played both Kongo and France, as they absolutely do not play the same.
Expansion in Vicky is very limited by that influence system and infamy and it's slow decay. One could expect diplomacy and politics to be more developed, yet they don't. Industrialisation and colonialism only start to kick in mid to late game. Nah, not really the same.
Ok that's true, but while playing V2 i still cant remember sitting infront of my computer for minutes, just waiting and doing nothing as i do in EU4. Maybe my memory is bad though..
So you haven't played both then? Different UI for nations would still play the same just look different. Tech for Kongo is different to France, different progression, different idea sets if you want to suceed with both. All nations use the same mechanics, how would you balance different mechanics across nations? Also increasing the number and complexity of the mechanics would require more rescources, if you own a computer that could handle that good for you, no everyone does though.
Yes, EU4 needs more character and it is its biggest flaw.
It does not, however, need more complexity.
Character can easily be added by more focus on, you know, actual characters. Add in a few elements from CK2 (please dear god, not too much) like having some influence on your royal family and more interaction with advisors and such and you're set. The new catholic system was a step in the right direction, but more can be done.
Also the non-Euro nations don't need a buff. If you want to play with a world where everyone is equal from the getgo, use a mod that makes everyone Western and please don't ruin it for the rest of us who want historically accurate European Übermenschen.
It does not, however, need more complexity.
Character can easily be added by more focus on, you know, actual characters. Add in a few elements from CK2 (please dear god, not too much) like having some influence on your royal family and more interaction with advisors and such and you're set. The new catholic system was a step in the right direction, but more can be done.
Also the non-Euro nations don't need a buff. If you want to play with a world where everyone is equal from the getgo, use a mod that makes everyone Western and please don't ruin it for the rest of us who want historically accurate European Übermenschen.