The Europa Universalis IV Thread

Ducksforcup

Registered User
Jan 5, 2006
12,914
1,212
Irvine, California
The four paradox games are pretty different. Never got in to HOI but I like the different focus of the three others. The dynasty system got me hooked on CK2, but EUIV is probably a better game. I've got more hours into it then any of the others. Been playing V2 lately.

My problem with EUIV now is mods. I like the changes better than Vanilla but I can't find the right balance. The mod I like the best makes nations too equal, meaning it's next to impossible to conquer India and other weak nations quickly. Which is ahistorical and a little game breaking.

I am so bad at V2, but no doubt it is an amazing game. I usually just play the USA...I tried a Chile game one time and got crushed by murderous Europeans. As you alluded to, I like the fact that Paradox tweaks each of its games enough to make them totally unique experiences. V2, CK2, Eu4 are very similar objective wise, but radically different gameplay wise.

Never felt any compelling reason to try any of the mods for Eu4, but I really should check them out at some point.

Any in particular you recommend? I know a ton of people download ones that tweak the U.I.

In regards, to equality, amongst nations...as it stands now, I think the game is more "balanced" than it ever has been. I remember in EU3 2,000 Europeans could easily defeat Indian (subcontinent) armies of 20,000 men suffering zero losses. I like the fact that the game tries to simulate the historical reality, but it was obviously way too skewed towards Europe. It still is to a degree (as it should be), but now playing nations in other parts of the world is actually viable. It accounts for the gradual dominance of Europe without sacrificing the fun of playing other nations around the globe.
 
Last edited:

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,590
605
Martinaise, Revachol
I am so bad at V2, but no doubt it is an amazing game. I usually just play the USA...I tried a Chile game one time and got crushed by murderous Europeans. As you alluded to, I like the fact that Paradox tweaks each of its games enough to make them totally unique experiences. V2, CK2, Eu4 are very similar objective wise, but radically different gameplay wise.

Never felt any compelling reason to try any of the mods for Eu4, but I really should check them out at some point.

Any in particular you recommend? I know a ton of people download ones that tweak the U.I.

In regards, to equality, amongst nations...as it stands now, I think the game is more "balanced" than it ever has been. I remember in EU3 2,000 Europeans could easily defeat Indian (subcontinent) armies of 20,000 men suffering zero losses. I like the fact that the game tries to simulate the historical reality, but it was obviously way too skewed towards Europe. It still is to a degree (as it should be), but now playing nations in other parts of the world is actually viable. It accounts for the gradual dominance of Europe without sacrificing the fun of playing other nations around the globe.

Victoria 2 is uber complicated, but I don't think it's necessarily hard. I learnt how to play with three very different nations. Japan, Sweden, and the USA. You can ignore industry, or micromanage it yourself. I find that's the most complicated part. The rest of the game can be pretty simple, though revolts can be downright ridiculous sometimes. Britain likes to lose India to 300,000+ strong revolts fairly easily. And when I mean lose, I mean have all the provinces occupied because Indian rebels have little in the means of enforcing their demands since they're just colonies.

I haven't played EUIV mods for about six-seven months now. They've changed a lot since then. The fairly major overhaul mods at the top of the popularity list on the Steam Workshop are a good place to look.

And it was never impossible to play outside nations outside of Europe. You're always going to be smarter than the AI, and it was never a huge hassle to turn a big Indian nation, China, Japan, etc. into great powers without much effort. I just didn't like some of the mods that made Indian nations 90% as powerful as Europeans. Yes they were weaker but you would never have a game where a European power conquered India because now you needed equal armies. Which is completely ahistorical. The 2000 vs. 20,000 is pretty close to reality. The needing 15,000 to beat 20,000 Indian soldiers isn't.
 

AfroThunder396

[citation needed]
Jan 8, 2006
39,052
22,922
Miami, FL
It's super difficult to understand at first. I mean I have 400 plus hours invested in this game and I am still learning new things about it every time I play.

My first game (as Castille, probably the easiest nation in the game to play), I got annihilated by invading North African Berbers. I had basically no idea what was happening.

It's all about trial and error...the more you play the game, the more you understand how it works. It's worth doing because it's in my view the most fun and varied game around. So much strategy...and like I said before every single game is an entirely new experience.

What about the military aspect of the game was confusing?

It just didn't really make sense. I was playing as Castille as well. I somehow captured Grenada, still not sure how. I made a bunch of military and attacked them, and despite vastly outnumbering their forces they nearly wiped me out. Then all of a sudden I just had the province? I didn't get it.

And then I tried to attack Aragon and the same thing happened. My vastly larger army got their ass kicked. They barely lost any units while my army was decimated, and then they came in and stole all of my provinces. I ragequit after that.

I didn't really get the military tradition. So the game punishes me for not being in war? How am I supposed to build up tech and economy if I have to constantly crank out military units and have to perpetually be at war?

I played the tutorials but they were WAY too brief, I don't know how I'm supposed to figure out a game this complex with a grand total of 40 minutes played in the tutorial levels.

I don't know, it seems like it could be fun but I really don't want to invest 100's of hours just figuring stuff out in order for it to be fun. Civilization and Age of Empires are more my speed. I might revisit it if I can find some Idiot's Guide to EU on YT or something.
 

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,590
605
Martinaise, Revachol
It just didn't really make sense. I was playing as Castille as well. I somehow captured Grenada, still not sure how. I made a bunch of military and attacked them, and despite vastly outnumbering their forces they nearly wiped me out. Then all of a sudden I just had the province? I didn't get it.

And then I tried to attack Aragon and the same thing happened. My vastly larger army got their ass kicked. They barely lost any units while my army was decimated, and then they came in and stole all of my provinces. I ragequit after that.

I didn't really get the military tradition. So the game punishes me for not being in war? How am I supposed to build up tech and economy if I have to constantly crank out military units and have to perpetually be at war?

I played the tutorials but they were WAY too brief, I don't know how I'm supposed to figure out a game this complex with a grand total of 40 minutes played in the tutorial levels.

I don't know, it seems like it could be fun but I really don't want to invest 100's of hours just figuring stuff out in order for it to be fun. Civilization and Age of Empires are more my speed. I might revisit it if I can find some Idiot's Guide to EU on YT or something.

Spain has a lot of hills and mountains, which give bonuses to the defender. If the defender was in plains or farmland, you'd have a slight morale bonus as an attacker but still potentially disadvantaged against the defender depending on whether there was a river in the province you attacked, among other defensive factors. With Granada, you likely attacked them in the mountains, but even though they wiped out a lot of your soldiers, they probably routed (do to reaching zero morale), then your remaining soldiers captured the province. With Aragon, they have stronger units than Granada, so when you attacked them when they had the advantage, your units routed which they could follow and wipe out. It's also possible they had a good general and you either had a bad one or even no general.

Army tradition isn't just from fighting. It's from pursuing policies that support the military (usually at the expense of the Navy and other institutions). There are techs that raise tradition. Fighting raises it too of course, as your soldiers and officers get more experience/learn new tactics. You don't need it to win, it just helps by giving your soldiers an advantage.

The game is supposed to have a steep learning curve. I got my ass kicked for my first few games. It takes awhile to learn. Hell, I probably had 50-60 hours into it before I realized my empires were so poor because I didn't know anything about the mechanics of trade. It takes awhile to learn. Once you get it, it's great.
 

member 51464

Guest
What kind of system requirements do I need to play this? Sounds like Civ with more depth.

edit: nevermind, just had to scroll further down on steam
 

Ser Jorah Mormont

Lord Friendzone
Sep 3, 2013
1,052
0
Down Under
This is the one true way of colonizing North America btw, taken from a EU3 Sweden game I played :laugh:

nE7afVi.jpg
 

Ser Jorah Mormont

Lord Friendzone
Sep 3, 2013
1,052
0
Down Under
Seems a lot of Steam reviewers are very negative about the Common Sense dlc. Has anyone here got it and can say whether it's as bad as they claim in regards to broken warfare (sieges being impossible, terrible AI) and not being able to build certain things without having the dlc?
 

Ducksforcup

Registered User
Jan 5, 2006
12,914
1,212
Irvine, California
Seems a lot of Steam reviewers are very negative about the Common Sense dlc. Has anyone here got it and can say whether it's as bad as they claim in regards to broken warfare (sieges being impossible, terrible AI) and not being able to build certain things without having the dlc?

Disagree with both assertions. The new fort system (at least to me) makes complete sense. No more "carpet sieging" is a beautiful thing.

Don't think the AI is terrible at all. If anything, it has improved over the years. For example the Ottoman AI is miles better than it used to be (it actually is aggressive) and the coalition system seems like a good check on human expansion.

Common Sense isn't a huge upgrade, but its a good one nevertheless. The ability to develop provinces, the new parliamentary government, the changes to religions are all really cool new features.

I'm personally a fan of it. :)

EDIT: Just reading the reviews...man they are eviscerating it. Although to be fair a lot of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that you have to pay for the upgrade. I'm just not seeing it in regards to the criticism of the AI. I mean it certainly does dumb things, but what AI doesn't? Paying for all of these DLC's is annoying I admit, but I'll gladly fork over the cash for improvements in this special case...since EU4 is such an awesome game. :D

On a side note, my favorite EU moment. I've seen Grenadine Alaska...yes the same Grenada that starts in Spain. And it was formed by the AI. I was so proud.
 
Last edited:

Ser Jorah Mormont

Lord Friendzone
Sep 3, 2013
1,052
0
Down Under
Disagree with both assertions. The new fort system (at least to me) makes complete sense. No more "carpet sieging" is a beautiful thing.

Don't think the AI is terrible at all. If anything, it has improved over the years. For example the Ottoman AI is miles better than it used to be (it actually is aggressive) and the coalition system seems like a good check on human expansion.

Common Sense isn't a huge upgrade, but its a good one nevertheless. The ability to develop provinces, the new parliamentary government, the changes to religions are all really cool new features.

I'm personally a fan of it. :)

EDIT: Just reading the reviews...man they are eviscerating it. Although to be fair a lot of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that you have to pay for the upgrade. I'm just not seeing it in regards to the criticism of the AI. I mean it certainly does dumb things, but what AI doesn't? Paying for all of these DLC's is annoying I admit, but I'll gladly fork over the cash for improvements in this special case...since EU4 is such an awesome game. :D

On a side note, my favorite EU moment. I've seen Grenadine Alaska...yes the same Grenada that starts in Spain. And it was formed by the AI. I was so proud.

Fair enough, I'll most likely buy it when it's on sale, I've got all the other expansion dlc so might as well get that one too.

Also started a Najd game, man are they poor, I had to forego hiring advisors just so I could afford to buy troops up to my force limit. I did forge some claims on Omani provinces and took 3 in the war against them as well as vassalizing the poor buggers. Now to convert all the Ibadi and Shia provinces and make preparations for my neighbours :naughty:
 

Shrimper

Trick or ruddy treat
Feb 20, 2010
104,167
5,248
Essex
Been watching some videos on this and would be interested in getting it. Is it a turn based, dice roll type game? What is the difference between this and Civ 5?
 

Belamorte

Feed Your Head
Nov 14, 2003
2,942
7
North American Scum
The game is very hard to learn but once you learn the basics it is not too bad. I would suggest Crusader Kings 2 though over it. It is much easier to learn and to me seems much more enjoyable as well as on the new engine so it looks better.
 

SniperHF

Rejecting Reports
Mar 9, 2007
42,631
21,042
Phoenix
Is it a turn based

EU is real time with pausing. You can configure auto pauses based on events or pause manually.

IMO the most important difference between EU and Civ is this:

EU has MANY different gameplay elements that can make it overwhelming to learn at first.

Civ has fewer gameplay elements but each element has more depth to it.

Some other differences:
EU is historically inclined and a nation state that is historically powerful during the timeframe will have substantial advantages. In Civ such advantages are very limited and balance is a greater concern.

In Civ you try to win the game, in EU you try to accomplish your own objectives in the allotted time.

Similarly along the historical lines, EU has historically oriented mechanics that allow weaker nations to somewhat keep pace. Suing for peace and research bonuses to name a few. You won't be nuking other countries that still have knights like you might in Civ.

In Civ Every player starts off more or less on an equal footing. In EU this is not the case at all.
 

SniperHF

Rejecting Reports
Mar 9, 2007
42,631
21,042
Phoenix
A specific gameplay mechanic having more depth =/= the game as a whole. Though ultimately I would come down on the side of Civ Having more depth it is close.

EU creates its depth by having an extremely large amount of individually more shallow mechanics compared to Civ that come together. Research for example is substantially more complicated in Civ than EU as it's much more of an active choice that can change the balance between winning in the first hundred turns and losing. Research in EU might be more complicated under the hood but the fact is a lot of that is outside of the players control. Penalties for being early and neighbor bonuses cap or boost your ability to make progress.

That's not a negative thing because it's necessary to maintain the historical nature. But it caps the influence the a skilled player can have in a particular game. One who isn't using various strategy guides, obvious balance flaws or exploits that is.

In EU the player often feels like a manager, trying to steer a boat already on a course. When you get good you can take it off that course. In Civ your success or failure is almost completely your own making from the first game.

I've got about 350 hours in EU according to Steam. It became a faceroll after around 200. I believe the usual criticism is map painting. Civ, I've easily got 3-4 thousand hours and really even by about 2500 I was still discovering new strategies and tactics. Civ with it's greater micro level control and random maps adds a level of complexity EU's kitchen sink approach cannot emulate.

In EU you have more things to do. In Civ you have more things to consider for the things you do have to do.
 

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,872
411
Seat of the Empire
Just got Switzerlake yesterday! That is 99 provinces without having a single port.

11934972_10153600982892269_2996441308792089872_n.jpg


It wasn't Great Khan tough, but the aggressive expansion penalties associated with the Holy Roman Empire were just brutal.

I am always so drained after these achievement sessions lol. Probably going to go for an easier one as a sort of lull. Maybe Krabater (create Croatia and then park a unit of calvary in Stockholm).
Agressive Expansion you say? :sarcasm:

LeBlob.jpg
 

Ducksforcup

Registered User
Jan 5, 2006
12,914
1,212
Irvine, California
A specific gameplay mechanic having more depth =/= the game as a whole. Though ultimately I would come down on the side of Civ Having more depth it is close.

EU creates its depth by having an extremely large amount of individually more shallow mechanics compared to Civ that come together. Research for example is substantially more complicated in Civ than EU as it's much more of an active choice that can change the balance between winning in the first hundred turns and losing. Research in EU might be more complicated under the hood but the fact is a lot of that is outside of the players control. Penalties for being early and neighbor bonuses cap or boost your ability to make progress.

That's not a negative thing because it's necessary to maintain the historical nature. But it caps the influence the a skilled player can have in a particular game. One who isn't using various strategy guides, obvious balance flaws or exploits that is.

In EU the player often feels like a manager, trying to steer a boat already on a course. When you get good you can take it off that course. In Civ your success or failure is almost completely your own making from the first game.

I've got about 350 hours in EU according to Steam. It became a faceroll after around 200. I believe the usual criticism is map painting. Civ, I've easily got 3-4 thousand hours and really even by about 2500 I was still discovering new strategies and tactics. Civ with it's greater micro level control and random maps adds a level of complexity EU's kitchen sink approach cannot emulate.

In EU you have more things to do. In Civ you have more things to consider for the things you do have to do.

Civ (at least to me) gets extremely repetitive and isn't as dynamic as EU4. Obviously we disagree on this front, but every single time I play EU4 it is a radically different experience.

As you alluded to, the historical penalties are necessary to maintain a semblance of historical accuracy, but with skill and determination these can be overcome. The added challenge from playing countries (such as one province minors) is a tremendously rewarding experience and one that is absolutely viable (but granted very difficult at times). Paradox has worked really hard on making the non European countries much more dynamic and in this they have been very successful. Go back two years ago and I would agree that the non-European game was boring, bland, and just overall uninteresting.

And I actually disagree about the research aspect as well. The Idea group selection is actually massivley important and largely dictates how you will play that particular game. That is a huge decision and I believe that is very similar to the Cultural Idea/Research mechanic in Civ.

I can understand why you feel as if "your country is already on a set course". However I would counter with this. Playing 300 hours no doubt you've noticed every single game there are radically different maps. Now this is partially due to human interference, but just in the last game I saw Brittany take over the entirety of France and Luneburg also become big enough to form Germany. I've even seen Grenada colonize Alaska as I mentioned earlier. Of course usually countries like France perform well, but you just never know what the AI will do. In my view, these historically gifted countries SHOULD do well, but the fact that they sometimes don't is what keeps this player playing.

Don't get me wrong, Civ is a fantastic game (although I loathe one unit, one tile). Have had many, many fun hours in Civ and in some key areas, it presents the player with more options. I do like the fact that there are so many objectives for the player to pursue (this is why I started running achievements in Eu4). But EU4 is the game for me. :)
 
Last edited:

Ducksforcup

Registered User
Jan 5, 2006
12,914
1,212
Irvine, California
Fair enough, I'll most likely buy it when it's on sale, I've got all the other expansion dlc so might as well get that one too.

Also started a Najd game, man are they poor, I had to forego hiring advisors just so I could afford to buy troops up to my force limit. I did forge some claims on Omani provinces and took 3 in the war against them as well as vassalizing the poor buggers. Now to convert all the Ibadi and Shia provinces and make preparations for my neighbours :naughty:

Keep me posted on your progress. Jihad is considered a "Very Hard" achievement, so good luck. :) Still need to do it myself.

And I do want to get a multiplayer game going. Who would all be interested in such a game?
 

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,872
411
Seat of the Empire
Lol that's amazing. I love how you avoided Hungary (no doubt because of their insane coring cost penalties).

Well done...that's super impressive. Did you get the French blob achievement (think it is 100 provinces before 1500)?
Nah I just didn't want to backstab my allies, Hungary, Castille and Portugal. Actually hoped I'd get to PU them but things kept screwing up on that front. Probably karma for becoming HRE Emperor and fully inheriting Burgundy and its subjects by 1453.:laugh: And yeah I got The Big Blue Blob, Better than Napoleon and A Decent Reserve on that run.
 

crowi

Registered Loser
May 11, 2012
8,173
2,790
Helsinki
My issue with Common Sense DLC is it costs 14.99 € to unlock an important new game mechanic. It's not possible to develop your provinces with monarch points unless you have this DLC. That part of this DLC should have been completely free. This really changed my perspective about this game and the company too.

I have completely shelved this game as IMO it churns out way too much DLC at very high prices. I would rather watch some other guy play it on youtube than constantly pay these ridiculous prices. I won't buy this or any other future DLC unless it's on sale for less than 3 € - I have already spent way more on DLC than I did on the actual game.

As is, my game is completely ****ed due to this province development thing.

Some dude on steam had this to say: "Make sure you delete any saved games with the new patch. Go to library, right click EuIV, go to properties, go to beta and select version 1.11.4 (patch before common sense)."

I wonder if that would remove this new mechanic. Anyone here have experience with that?
 
Last edited:

StrictlyCommercial

Registered User
Oct 28, 2006
8,456
975
Vancouver
A specific gameplay mechanic having more depth =/= the game as a whole. Though ultimately I would come down on the side of Civ Having more depth it is close.

EU creates its depth by having an extremely large amount of individually more shallow mechanics compared to Civ that come together. Research for example is substantially more complicated in Civ than EU as it's much more of an active choice that can change the balance between winning in the first hundred turns and losing. Research in EU might be more complicated under the hood but the fact is a lot of that is outside of the players control. Penalties for being early and neighbor bonuses cap or boost your ability to make progress.

That's not a negative thing because it's necessary to maintain the historical nature. But it caps the influence the a skilled player can have in a particular game. One who isn't using various strategy guides, obvious balance flaws or exploits that is.

In EU the player often feels like a manager, trying to steer a boat already on a course. When you get good you can take it off that course. In Civ your success or failure is almost completely your own making from the first game.

I've got about 350 hours in EU according to Steam. It became a faceroll after around 200. I believe the usual criticism is map painting. Civ, I've easily got 3-4 thousand hours and really even by about 2500 I was still discovering new strategies and tactics. Civ with it's greater micro level control and random maps adds a level of complexity EU's kitchen sink approach cannot emulate.

In EU you have more things to do. In Civ you have more things to consider for the things you do have to do.

Maybe it's because I overplayed Civ, but I could build an insurmountable advantage within 100 turns every game. In general, most of the options available to you in Civ are mistakes and once you understand the mechanics the game is very linear.

Multiplayer added a bit to it, but simultaneous turns are broken, and waiting for others to take turns is excruciatingly boring.

Once I discovered EU4 it basically killed my interest in both Civ and Total war. I also much prefer the paradox model of constantly making new content for DLCs as opposed the Civ model of stripping features from previous versions on release then re-adding them as paid DLC. Every major patch on EUIV is like playing a whole new game.

On the CK2 front I'm not a big fan of all the background family stuff, so I could never get into it.
 

crowi

Registered Loser
May 11, 2012
8,173
2,790
Helsinki
I'm not entirely sure if you guys are talking about CIV5 or CIV4, either way - I couldn't stand design choices and broken UI of CIV5 myself. I would much rather play EU4 over CIV5 even with all CIV5 expansions.

Now, if you're talking about CIV4, then EU4 isn't even close to it for me.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->