You just missed out by a couple months on a nice humble bundle deal. I might still have some dlc keys for steam and eu4 that I don’t need. Let me check and I’ll DM you this afternoon with whatever keys I still have.
Right. The model is always limited by what it omits, but it’s entirely possible to make a simple model that would still be true to the spirit of what it portrays. But the scope of the game and player choices define what is realistic and what is not. I’m sure Victoria 3 will have the most “realistic” portrayal of warfare cause it will be mostly automated and they wouldn’t have to worry about obvious or boring choices.
The thing that constantly bothers me about Paradox games is that occupy this uncanny valley of realism: true enough to history to create a learning plateau and remove a lot of potentially more interesting gameplay choices, but not realistic enough to match historical or world dynamics in any meaningful way. I’m happier with a blank slate approach like Civ where real history is only vaguely and generally approximated by game mechanics, or with a completely alien world where no relation to history is necessary.
It’s a long talk but I know what you mean. I didn’t realize what HRE was till I played Europa Universalis 2. If I didn’t read up on it I’d have a skewed (more skewed than I have now) idea of it, and I could make a lot of assumptions just because I understand it more than a person on the street. The level of detail you see in EU4 or Imperator Rome or CK3 makes you think of it as an encyclopedia. But obviously, beyond geography, those games are full of omissions and generalizations. I’m talking about omissions again because it’s a more insidious thing. I can’t blame CK3 devs for ignoring economic development during middle ages because it’s not the focus of the game, and talking about how this or that is not represented always sounds like whining. CK3 is consciously following the Great Man history tropes because that’s what this game is about. Great conquests are made by great character interactions, not by economics, population, climate, and other factors. By necessity, the game portrays the world as a battle arena with rulers as sole actors. Someone with a limited knowledge of history exposed to CK3 would probably think of feudalism as a default system of rule all over the world in the Middle Ages, and would think of states in terms of continuation of the sovereign will only be limited by their vassal rulers. EU4 teaches you that state expansion is that economy and technology kinda works to fuel expansion (be it territorial one or “inner” expansion through magical development). When you learn by doing it’s powerful. You might think that the bonuses assigned to cultures and governments are an abstraction, but the core rules must be true to history, cause they make this model work, and you see how this model is similar to real maps of the time.
Civ is full of similar generalizations where game mechanics present you with the model of the world. Every tile is either occupied by an organized power or unoccupied and thus useless, empty, ripe for taking. The city is a basic foundation of civilization. A bigger and more populous city is always better and there are no drawbacks, there are only requirements for its support that you must meet. War is something bad and has to be avoided - even bloodthirsty civilizations don’t like conquerors much. There are such things as justified wars and unjustified wars. The human factor is deciding in climate change. Pikemen beat horsemen.
I’m not saying those assumptions are wrong, but they are presented you as how the world works and you don’t think of them when you play unless they’re strongly against your beliefs. When you see that Georgians are into walls you probably think it’s an exaggeration, but you never doubt that walls really helped to defend cities, or that library really boosted innovation, or that gems make people happier and so on.
That’s one reason why I find historical analysis of game mechanics (like on ACOUP) so interesting. What does it capture, what does it miss, what’s ridiculous, etc. Like how EU4 presents everything from the perspective of the state, but does capture the basic security dilemma of the states. Or how Victoria is so unusual in games for modelling the actual people and the consequences of that.
Yeah, focus on player actors is the biggest omission of such simulations. Even in something like Crusader Kings the player has total control over everything in their domain, it’s a totalitarian power not possible even for modern totalitarian states. EU4 ignores such actors as organized religion, international societies, trade companies. Semi-independent powers like estates or rebels are presented as predictable passive entities who give bonuses unless you allow them to go too unhappy and then they become rebellious armies. Some of this stuff is simulated by events, but those are rarely impactful and are more of a flavor thing with clear choices.
I think this is why these games have been so valuable to me. They are a jumping off point to becoming interested in learning more about times and places I was otherwise ignorant of.
Also good strategy games teach you aspects of good real world strategy too. The kind applicable in real life, not necessarily military strategy. Trade-offs, long term vs short term thinking, etc.
I love that Diplomacy is the most important aspect of EU4 and reflects the historical reality that everyone needs friends in order to stand up to their enemies.
I can’t think of many other games with such an in-depth diplomacy/trust/rival system.
Economy and military power are enablers within the diplomatic context until you are so powerful that you can go it alone - in which case it is time for a restart.
(And some solid feedback on micro management and on busy work in above posts. I do hope that is taken into account for the inevitable EU5).
EUIV’s diplomacy ruined every other game’s diplomacy models for me. And I truly mean every single game.
As an example, I have a group of friends whose first foray into Paradox games was Stellaris. Stellaris is ok in my view, but when I’d play it with them, or alone, I’d long for the diplomacy of EUIV. Stellaris just feels so empty in comparison, develop planets, do some research and engage in meaningless wars.
Similar thing can be said for Civ games. Once, Civ IV was the pinnacle of diplomacy for me. I understood it enough to see how different leaders have their own personality that was directed by opinion modifiers. I think Civ IV is still great, but with the evolution of the series to what exists in Civ VI, and how there’s some parallels drawn to the various CBs, I find the experience less interesting in comparison to the manipulation of the political (and economic) environment that EUIV offers.
A big part of it is the number of actors and their relative power. In Stellaris and most other empire-building games, everyone is more or less on the same foot. There are special entities, but diplomacy with them is very limited. In EU4 you can start as the weakest power in the region and have to look for allies and appease the bigger fish. When you’re bigger you might not want to get involved into a grand conflict with a power of similar strength so you isolate weaker opponents, you navigate the web of alliances looking for a weak link. In Civilization military alliances are rare and the power difference is never as big as in EU4. Even if you add all of those diplomatic tools to other games there’s nowhere to use them.
Stellaris wanted to do something interesting with Space UN but it never felt that interesting to me. First, from the flavor point of view, it makes the galaxy more mundane and boring as the mysterious bird crusaders get involved in talks about minimum wage and research subsidies. Second, it feels very mechanical and straightforward, I don’t remember any interesting stuff happening with it apart from begging everyone to take a stand on a crisis, and the game insists on regular sessions about +10% to worker production and +20% to worker consumption. So yeah, EU4 is the king and even CK3 feels lacking in that regard with its focus on interpersonal relations and lack of realpolitik considerations. In that game if you want a good alliance you don’t have to affect geopolitical situation, you need to have a pretty daughter and bloodline bonus for marriage acceptance.
As an aside, what does CB stand for? I’ve seen it used a few times outside of this thread — like the No CB podcast.
Casus Belli: your chosen reason to go to war.
That drives the type of rewards you can choose during the peace negotiations but also how war score ticks up.
For example, if your wargoal is a specific province for which you have a claim or core - then the war score increases every month as long as you occupy the province.
There are a few dozen CBs, but most of the time you’ll use the conquest of a province CB that does not have any specific reward exclusion:
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Casus_belli#List_of_casus_belli
Edit: “No CB” means declaring war on a country without a formal reason. You immediately suffer some war exhaustion, aggressive expansion and potentially stability penalties - but it can still be worth it to get an advantageous war on a country in which you cannot otherwise get a claim or other CB.
But that’s a pretty rare scenario- comparable to declaring war on a country that you still have armistice with.
Ah, thanks, for some reason I thought the abbreviation was specific to Civ, and hadn’t thought of casus beli.
NoCB specifically is kinda a meme cause it’s used either by people who have no idea of what they’re doing or by people who know exactly what they’re doing. An experienced player may use NoCB declaration of war to do something wacky and unconventional.
The truly experienced players exclusively use truce-breaking noCB wars.
Usually to declare on Byzantium as an opening move
As Albania
I’m embarrassed to say I tried to sit down and play EUIV the other night. I knew there are a bunch of new or revised systems, so I thought I nice easy stomp as Castille would work. Oh boy. The last time I played EUIV in any meaningful form was maybe when Dharma was released? It was certainly after Rule Britannia because I played as England, but I think it was before Golden Century. Has it really been 3-4 years since a full playthrough? Possibly… I do remember trying to do something with Milan back then.
There’s a lot of mechanics that I have to relearn in this game. Estates I never really liked when initially implemented, but now they’re different. And it just adds to the difficulty because now there’s more decisions to be made. So good and bad. Remembering how the various innovations work. I think sailors can now also be marines, so an extra manpower pool? I can only assume cavalry is still mostly useless? So many small decisions, buttons and other assorted additions to the game. It really makes my first ever conquest in Europe be a long time ago.
I guess the nice thing about these changes is sending me down the path of playing CK3 instead. I have to give credit to Paradox there, CK3 is much easier to learn than what CK2 and/or EUIV were.
You can pretty much ignore estates. Just try to keep them from dropping below 30% support. When you get more powerful they become useful. Same thing with marines (which are only unlocked with a naval doctrine or for specific countries, if memory serves). Cavalry is useless, unless you’re a nation with good cavalry bonuses.
The nation that got me back into EU4 for the latest binge was Malacca. Colonizing the Pacific, trade heavy, and can invade up in Asia. It was a lot of fun, with a lot of different mechanics, but not nearly the breadth of scope compared to Spain.
Other fun nations recently: Hungary, Brandenburg to Prussia, Saluzzo, Holland to The Netherlands
Fun alternative to Mallacca is Palembang. Same region, same overall options, but you start as a tiny pirate nation. You can punch way above your weight. But you also can get curb stomped for a long time if you aren’t careful as piracy makes diplomacy harder, at the same time the wealth makes it less important.