>Victoria 2 is still more liked than Victoria 3
>Some people would rather play CK2 or Heart of Iron 3 (or2) than CK3 and HOI4
What did EU3 do wrong?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>Victoria 2 is still more liked than Victoria 3
Every EU and CK installment is a refinement of the basic formula with more content added, while every HOI and Vicky version plays differently from one another
CK3 doesn't have a decade worth of content so people still prefer the older game, expect this to change over the years
In the end it doesn't matter if Paradox just makes a sequel or completely changes their franchises, balding Slavs will always cry and piss themselves for wasting their youth playing shit games
Divine Wind horde mechanics were shit and the game was barebones as frick without the mods. EU2 was prefered by many at the time for a reason.
EU4 is shit, but it might actually be better than EU3.
Base CK2 was better than CK3 and only got worse with later DLCs. CK3 is just the further SIMSification of the game. CK1 is wildly different game btw.
Wind horde mechanics were shit and the game was barebones as frick without the mods.
At least conceptually they are cool as frick.
>hordes auto-declare war on everyone every 10 years
>you can't conquer hordes and hordes can't annex civilized provinces
>horde occupies neighboring province for many years, it gets auto-annexed
>in order annex a horde province, you have to occupy a neighboring province and colonize it
Haters gonna hate, but at least they went with balls to the walls.
If your native doesn't have a saying in tune of "road to hell is paved with good intentions", then your native is fricking moronic
Yes, that was also based as frick. Too bad that the based horde years are gone in EU IV.
>At least conceptually they are cool as frick.
Yes. When I wrote that post I meant to add the bit that I dig the idea, but realization sucked.
Like, it's broken, easily abuseable, gets boring fast and useless in the hands of AI. Same applies to quite a few of other EU3 mechanics, of course, but not to the same degree.
>EU2 was prefered by many at the time for a reason
I got into Paradox map painters at around the time when Sengoku came out, between that time and the release of EUIV I have never seen anyone play EU2, neither on /gsg/ nor on YouTube. And it wasn't because the game was hard to get, since you could buy For The Glory has been on Steam since 2009.
>I am a zoomie zoomzoom
>But I will try to pass myself as a grog anyway
>getting into Paradox games after Divine Wind came out is grog
>playing Paradox games in general is grog
I play it occasionally (much more recently than I've played EU4), I just don't post about gsg campaigns.
>I started with PDX after the period mentioned by anon
>Why didn't I witness the things anon is talking about?
Because you're moronic
Why do paradox games have less content than their predecessors at launch but that's rare in other games?
e.g. Red Alert->2
>Why do games with a ton of DLC have more content than new games with no DLC?
We may never know
RTS games had loads of competition and needed to keep their fanbase, nobody else really makes autismo GSGs
>slavs slavs slavs
meds
>Every EU and CK installment is a refinement of the basic formula with more content added, while every HOI and Vicky version plays differently from one another
this is how I know you haven't played CK1 and 2. 3 is a direct downgrade in very many ways, and 1 is a completely different game from either of them
Eh. They are not that different. They are more similar to each other than another game.
If CK1 plays noticeably different, it is because it is a clunky mess and barely playable at all.
>expect this to change over the years
You "people" have been saying this for three fricking years.
>ck3 will surpass ck2 just wait a few years
its BEEN 3 years and it's still an empty shell of a game, only notable for le epic gay lovers with the pope screenshots for reddit
EU 1 and 2 are literally nothing like 3 and when 3 released it was considered a dumbed down le believable worlds trashfire with none of the historical backbone that made 2 beloved
zoomer trash
Nothing went wrong, the paradrone audience prefer to shell out 100+bucks on a broken dlc fest with useless bloat than a somewhat completed experience.
>broken dlc fest with useless bloat
You've described EU3 perfectly, which is why the handful of jaded millennials who still care about the game play it without the latest expansion and with mods.
PDS's audience massively expanded when CK2 came out and many of those newbies bought EU4 and its 6 billion DLCs with disconnected features without ever playing EU3. The only things EU3 did wrong was being released before CK2, and Divine Wind being left in an unfinished state.
>The only things EU3 did wrong was being worse than EU4 in every way
no shit n-word
And the only thing you did wrong was having bad taste.
>old thing good, new thing bad
Shit boomer go back to your janky 90s rts threads.
Rephrasing a true statement as buzzwords doesn't make it any less true
funny how many jaded poorgay slavs crawl out of their holes to defend this dead game just to shit on Paradox
I have not played 4.
I played and loved 1 and 2, but when I played 3 it was not as enjoyable. This was long ago, so I cannot tell you specifics, but my favorite among 1-3 was 2.
Became obsolete as soon as Meiou and Taxes was a thing
Am I the only one who likes this game. It was my very first paradox game, and it hooked me into the strategy genre. This is the game I consider to be the timeless classic of all the paradox games. I liked the expansions (all of them). Why nobody on /vst/ likes it.
It's ok, it has its problems but the slider system for policies and tech is better than the dumb point system eu4 has going on.
>Mana for everything is dumb, but money for everything is good
Yes
Yes? I mean I get money for successfully running my country. Meanwhile I get mana, because.
>It's ok, it has its problems but the slider system for policies and tech is better than the dumb point system eu4 has going on.
Exactly. You are a leader that may stream the money into proper venues for investment. Not a fricking wizard, accumulating and blasting mana spells left and right. I miss the sliders
I didn't like sliders back then, but they're still miles better than mana.
>Am I the only one who likes this game.
>It was my very first paradox game
Really makes you wonder why you like it. A true enigma!
Nothing was wrong it was good, it just existed before most of you gays even knew about Paradox games more than likely so obviously you prefer the newer stuff not saying that EUIII doesn't have its problems which it certainly does.
What had EU3 that made it more enjoyable than 2 and 4?
No mana
Event-and-flag based
Trade system
National ideas that weren't pointless bloat
Useful advisors (rather than using advisors to offset your ruler)
More detailed map than EU2
FAR more stable than EU2
FAR greater modding capacity than EU2
Reinforcements, probably the most important and impactful change over EU2 (even if I hate the idiotic "new units with new technologies" system and regiments as they are are also cancer)
>No mana
they had mana, it was actors (or whatever they were called) that artificially restricted things you could do
>Everything is mana, because I say so
This is your brain on starting with nu-PDX.
Agents weren't mana, for you had exact and specific influence on how many you've had of each type and a clear reasoning why. There was zero random element to it, and you could do shitload of stuff without them. In fact, agents were for the most part useess, sans for merchants (but then you had 12 of them/year, the top cap of agent growth)
every mechanic is just dated and tedious to touch when reminded that eu4 has a better iteration of it
>monthly negative income with a yearly cash dump
>chance-based diplomacy, with no idea how to improve odds
>merchants
>colonists
>magistrates (i don't even remember what they did but the word is giving me traumatic flashbacks)
>half the game being about trying to get CBs to invade neighbors (it's also bad in 4 because claims made CBs redundant)
>pirates
>revolt risk
i hate mana but eu4 is still so much more pleasant to play
t. started with eu3
>(i don't even remember what they did but the word is giving me traumatic flashbacks)
They were bad because they were basically a precursor to mana
>pirates
Hey guys, remember when you had to put at least one ship in every port in the New World to stop pirates from spawning?
That's EU2. And it was super-useful.
>monthly negative income with a yearly cash dump
thats how medieval kingdoms were functioning, more or less
>chance-based diplomacy, with no idea how to improve odds
just like in real life
>merchants
>colonists
>magistrates
yes
>half the game being about trying to get CBs to invade neighbors
thats how it went irl as well, getting people/nations to follow through on whatever promises they gave
>pirates
yarr
>revolt risk
Whats the matter, anon? Afraid I might take your capitol?
>i hate mana but
t.filthy casual
negative income with a yearly cash dump
That's how states still operate, do you realize how difficult it would be collect taxes every month?
-based diplomacy, with no idea how to improve odds
What's the issue? Seriously, asking because I'm gonna include it in my own strategy game.
>agents (merchants, colonists, magistrates)
Those are literally doing what mana was supposed. It depicts states capabilities beyond wealth.
The difference between mana and agents is that your agents always doing something, meanwhile with mana you have to wait for mana to tick up.
>(i don't even remember what they did but the word is giving me traumatic flashbacks)
Just like all agents, if you wanna build something, you must send one of your magistrates to supervise it, and the magistrate will return once the building is complete. So, if you have 3 magistrates, you can only build 3 buildings at a time.
risk
If I remember correctly, revolts were random, so you never knew when they occurred, whereas in EU4 you know 10 years ahead where the revolts will occur.
anons you have to separate gameplay from realism
my point is simple: the most realistic depiction is not necessarily the most fun, and income is the best example. What do you really gain from separating budget into yearly income and monthly spending? At best, you can miscalculate or overspend for the year and have to mint a bit of money and inflate your economy a bit (which just gets deinflated in the next year because everyone went master of mint). Is this really worth having to calculate your budget every year?
Next is the random diplomacy: What do you really get from random diplomacy? In execution, it either meant you savescummed (if you're not a savescummer, you would just give up on the campaign) because you really needed a yes on that Very Likely, or it meant the player had to send the request 4 more times and spend 4 diplomats. Again, not the end of the world, but it just is the kind of shit that makes you groan and glance at eu4.
Agents are, again, just tedious. It's fine to click colonists around while at peacetime, but when you're in the middle of a war with france and you look up and your colonists or magistrates are at 5 you get frustrated, especially when it functions more cleanly in eu4 where you send them once and they are continually active, which just reinforces the point that it's not unbearable, it's just more enjoyable in 4.
>unironically defending revolt risk
Unrest in 4 isn't good but it sure as shit is better than getting a revolt in a 0.2 rr mainland province while invading mexico. And the revolt probably wouldn't leave lasting damage, and you could finish up the war and come home without the rebels enforcing their demands, but one more time, when it happens your first thought is just that as realistic as these random ass revolts might be, they're not fun at all to play with/around. Unrest is also ass, and would be a lot better if the system was closer to hoi4 where unruly lands are manpower drains, but is less tedious.
>What do you really gain from separating budget into yearly income and monthly spending?
Strategic occupation, if you are to occupy a wealthy province before year changes, you are depriving your enemy of their annual income.
>Next is the random diplomacy: What do you really get from random diplomacy?
>In execution, it either meant you savescummed
If you need to savescum...
> getting a revolt in a 0.2 rr mainland province while invading mexico. A
Honestly, the game should punish you for using all your units in a single war and leaving your homeland defenseless.
>Honestly, the game should punish you for using all your units in a single war and leaving your homeland defenseless.
The problem is that there is no form of logistic whatsoever so you start playing like napoleonic armies right from the beginning. Added to that the fact that armies cost the same no matter what or where they are, so you are incentivised to go full zerg every game. The lack of logistic also create situation where you can drop 20k armies oversea quite easily while historically even a fraction of this would require a lot of logistical problems to overcome.
Moreover its easier to mass your armies and detach from that deathstack whatever you want wherever you want on account that communication is instantaneous and you have perfect information at all time on everything.
And of course paradox cannot program for shit si making the AI account for all of that would be quite bothersome to them.
>you can drop 20k armies oversea quite easily
Worst part is that the AI does it regularly. Oh, some random guy in the chain of alliances was allied with England or Spain? Enjoy defeating 10 naval landings in a row
>In execution, it either meant you savescummed (if you're not a savescummer, you would just give up on the campaign) because you really needed a yes on that Very Likely, or it meant the player had to send the request 4 more times and spend 4 diplomats. Again, not the end of the world, but it just is the kind of shit that makes you groan and glance at eu4.
You make it sound as if EU4 is balanced around savescumming, which just makes me hate it even more.
Old pirates were based as frick, and I’m mad that they butchered them in IV’s patches and replaced them with some privateer homosexualry. Frick it, I want some big-ass rogue heavy ships scouring the coastlines of America.
EU4 eventually bloated itself to death, and whenever I return to it, I quickly remind myself why I hate it so much: it's the horribly moronic trade system. EU1-2 trade was best, and 3 improved on it, allowing you to simply start your own CoTs, with hookers and blow.
>monthly negative income with a yearly cash dump
... yes? I mean they've fricked up and EU2 did taxation best of them all, but still, can't see your problem
>chance-based diplomacy, with no idea how to improve odds
Gee, if only you could see your diplomacy rating, their diplomacy rating, their ruler stance and their opinion about you, along with your reputation... truly, all of this is impossible to decipher!
>merchants
Missed badly, the old trade system was superior
>colonists
Depends on the version. Pre-HTTT colonisation was ok. Post-HTTT it's just same shit as IV, and that's boring and tedious, aka the worst possible outcome
>magistrates
Never understood the point of introducing them, if the game had them so poorly balanced, you could get more of them than merchants by 1550s. DW went full moron with requiring magistrates for construction, but then again, the theme of DW was going full moron in everything they've touched
>half the game being about trying to get CBs to invade neighbors
You realise you don't have to have a CB... right?
>pirates
Miss them
>revolt risk
... yes?
It's like you've collected random stuff to pretend the game has issues, rather than listing the plethora of problems EU3 genuinely has.
>It's like you've collected random stuff to pretend the game has issues, rather than listing the plethora of problems EU3 genuinely has.
Please read the first line of my post, this is exactly my point. It's not about whether the core gameplay of 3 or 4 is better, I personally prefer 3. It's about the QoL changes that make it hard to go back to 3 after having them. For example, >merchants, wasn't about the trade system. It was about having to continually click merchants away into CoTs. It's just tedious busywork that 4 did away with, but unfortunately also introduced a new (much more linear) trade system with it.
Nta, but as far as QoL is concerned, 3 and 4 are equal. Consider the following
>3 is dated, but everything is easy to access, so you might be missing handy options, but at least always know where to click what and don't have to dredge for information you are after
>4 is more modern, but everything is hidden and half the DLCs exist just to sell you a button to click (vanilla is nigh-unplayable) and you have to constantly dredge for informations
So in the end of the day, they square up in this regard.
>It was about having to continually click merchants away into CoTs
Which can be automated, along with intensity of sending new ones, you disingenious c**t.
>busywork
It's about maintaining your monopoly. It's as much "busywork" as sending 50 light ships just to get 2% of CoT control in 4, but here you are, b***hing about 2's trade system and misattributing it to 3. All while the real problem - 4's horrendous trade system, with routes set in stone - being glossed over, just so 4 looks less shite.
Go frick yourself, you fricking c**t.
>Why am I supposed to play the game, where the AI can play it for me
This is your brain on being raised on mobile games and watching lets plays. And they said I'm insane when pointing out circa 2008 that smartphones will bring ruin to kids
>some people would rather play HoI3
Is this meant to be a point of pride?
>wtf bro I can’t just afk and watch my favorite YouTube shorts with GTA stunts in the bottom half of the screen while my armies are entirely controlled by the ai and my celestial Dutch republic lead by Ann Frank conquers the entirety of Europe without me lifting a finger?
>I have to PLAY the game? That’s so not lit. Hoi3 is soooo mid for that. Who tf wants to come up with strategies and implement them yourself while playing a strategy game?
>eats a MR beast bar*
Least upset HoI3 non-player. Watch him not post his hours played.
>What did EU3 do wrong?
Finish on a wet fart that was Divine Wind
I played eu3 before eu4 came out, and i still enjoy it. But i suppose the % chance with diplomacy is frustrating, i guess the same with discovering land and colonies but that isnt so big a deal the game it's fairly easy to get the blob snowball going but simultaneously vassal spamming the less developed land and keeping the best for the highest tech gain is ideal. Still love my sliders and population over d*v and m*n* though.
And the music slaps hard still
I only play Vicky 2 and Darkest Hour (I think that's based on hoi2)
I like Vicky 2 too
>What did EU3 do wrong?
... nothing?
I mean there is DW, but nobody is forcing to use it and there is, in fact, zero reason to do so. HTTT is the final itteration, so I guess bunch of zoomers might get shit-tier experience, because they've blindy installed DW
>What did EU3 do wrong?
It wasn't playable until In Nomine, it wasn't good until Heir To The Throne and then Divine Wind fricked it over once more. So there was a very narrow window when it was worth bothering with and big part of the reason why so many people (and modders) sticked to the otherwise antiquated EU2. A big part of why people went back to EU3 was just how shit 4 turned out to be, and in the meanwhile 3's mods matured, making it much better experience overall. So in zoome: it's like with Crystal Skull, which now everyone jerk offs to how cool and good it was, solely because Dial is even worse.
I like playing with small countries and seeing what is the best I can make off it, vic 3 makes impossible to make a shitty nation anything good.
>Noooo I cannot conquer the world as the PLC
>vic 3 makes impossible to make a shitty nation anything good.
Just become a multicultural hub of immigration and you'll easily become #1 GP
At relase EUIV was EUIII with all the DLCs, better graphics and quality of life, and better base for modding, the was no reason to watch back.
Vicky 3 is just a completely different game from Vicky 3. This means the fanbase who still plays Vicky 2 do not want to play Vicky 3. Plus it's a shit game.
As for HoI 4 people clearly like HoI 4 more.
>Vicky 3 is just a completely different game from Vicky 3
*Vicky II
>Vicky 3 is just a completely different game from Vicky 3
>What did EU3 do wrong?
Nothing. It's my most played Paradox game. EU4 is just the first huge one that drew in all the normalgays, so it's more prominent
I do mod out the magistrate costs for buildings though, that's a dumb feature
>Some people would rather play CK2
The equivalent would be CK1 actually, now that I think about it
I loved EU3. Started with HOI3 but EU was more my jam. EU4 was a disappointment in many ways, especially with a lot of the later DLCs. But nothing could bring me back to the trading and colonising mechanics of EU3. RNG pass/fail again and again, forever. No thanks.
>EU3 do wrong?
First versions were buggy. It was finally playable in heir to the throne then divine wind made everything worse. There's only a small time frame where eu3 was enjoyable
all these Black person zoomers who will never know the suffering or scouring the internet for a 1 seed download of victoria 1 after finding and enjoying the new release of hoi2 and wanting to check out the rest of their catalogue only to absolutely fall in love with the complexity it offered
I hate how popular and stupid paradox has become and I blame it all on eu3 making their games accessible at the expense of historical accuracy
EU series always had boardgame rules and 4 smoothlined and improved those rules. Other Paradox games like HoI, CK and Victoria were historical sims that had EU boardgamified mechanics (mana, mission trees, simplified combat etc) applied to them in their most recent iterations.
I remember when I was in HS my older cousin was talking to me about this video game where you could play as ANY country in the world in the 1800s, and that it was the most complex strategy game he'd ever played. Learned it was called "Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun" and couldn't find a copy in any B&M shops in my town, but that Bestbuy had a copy of a game made by the same studio that nobody ever bought. It was EU: Rome and I bought it discounted and played hundreds of hours. Eventually learned how to torrent and finally got my hands on Vic1 as well as EU3 & HoI2. As a point of reference, at that time the closest things you could get to grand strategy in a B&M store were Total War games and some turn-based hex WWII combat games. The complexity and choice in OG Paradox games was mindblowing in comparison.
The trend for strategy games seems to be increasing features then perfecting the formula several installations in - then once popular/well-liked, making it more "user friendly" by attempting to automate or streamline, thus taking away parts of the strategy but allowing a game to be mass marketed.
Classic example would be Civilization series.
CK2 as others commented has too much more content at this point for any series fans to convert in large numbers, but a casual might prefer CK3.
I absolutely love EU3, it is my go-to game when I want to just disconnect my mind from the burden of daily life and just look at sliders and opportunities for expansion. It is of course not without its flaws. One of the things I don't like is how in the mid to late game you're really constrained by the number of magistrates you get, I wish they had made it easier to get them in the late game. I know there is a building that grants more magistrates but it's most of its build path is really useless and it also locks you out of (arguably) more useful level 5 & 6 buildings. Oh well.
This is a campaign as England I finished recently. When I play as England I make it a point to frick up the French and not lose my continental holdings. I saw an opportunity early on to get Judea and some provinces around it and I like that because holding Judea and Mecca gives you extra missionaries and prestige and it also enables a quick way to get to Asia way before 1650 (when Holy War ceases to exist). Unfortunately while I was busy with either fighting the Muslims or the French I lost my chance to capture the Azores and so I couldn't prevent colonization by the Portuguese.
I was allied to Bohemia which inherited Naples but when Naples broke away and I was called to the war I took the chance to get some provinces in Italy, including Rome which gives you the same bonus as holding Judea and Mecca (but only if you're not Catholic). In the late game I left Castile and Portugal mostly alone except when I was granted cores or a Border Friction CB.
Whenever I finish a campaign I'm always left feeling with "I should have expanded more aggressively" which fuels my desire to play another campaign.