If you want a more content-rich game, an experience that resembles a tabletop strategy game more closely and like the idea of progressing through a tree of missions and mini-objectives then play EU4.
If you want to govern a nation in incredible detail, freedom to pursue your own objectives, a more fair difficulty level with less 'gamey mechanics' and don't mind some growing pains then play EU5.
Awesome review. Still putting off my own first campaign until free time becomes less scarce, but I'm glad to hear that Paradox acquitted themselves relatively well this time around. Might hold off for a major content update or two just to let them sand down the rough edges somewhat.
Since I know you sunk some time into Imperator and Victorias 2 and 3, curious about how you reckon the new POP system stacks up against those three games. Does it feel like an evolution of those games' POP mechanics or does it feel like something new altogether that's particular to EU5?
Thank you! I know the big 1.1 patch is due sometime in February and the first DLC (centred around the alliance between Scotland and France I believe) will likely be soon after so it won't be too long until we see some much needed polish.
On a scale of complexity, I'd say that EU5 is the most complex rendition of this POP system with Stellaris at the bottom of the scale and Victoria 3 in-between. I wouldn't say it's an outright evolution, only that it's deeper; the simulation is more complex but you don't necessarily need to know what every moving part is to effectively govern.
I have no idea how the language/dialect mechanics work but haven't ever had much trouble culturally supplanting the populace in new territory like Granada as Castile or my local tribes as Mali for example.
I think it will be a great game, like, six months to a year from now and I’m very confident it’ll get there. I’ve gone cold on it after playing quite a bit for the first few weeks after launch - the fact that in 9 out of 10 games France and Bohemia would quickly be unstoppable just makes things a bit predictable for me.
That being said, your article makes me want to come back to it soon!
Me too, the foundation is a lot stronger than say, Vicky 3 or CK3, those games launched with a lot missing whereas EU5 has it all there, just in rough shape in a lot of ways; I'm looking forward to the Andes getting another once over, it's basically unplayable there right now which is a crying shame.
I think February will be the next big patch and the first DLC can't be far off either, you'll get your chance :)
Now I'm looking forward to My First 250 Hours Of EU5, where you invert every opinion from this and declare the game unsalvageable before playing it for another 250 hours.
As someone who likes to bring order to chaos, I think these Paradox games would stress me out too much, haha. Too much to keep track of, my poor brain!
I do enjoy reading your reviews about them though. Crazy that you can put 100+ hours into the game and still call it a preliminary review!
My advice would be to pick a smaller nation, preferably without any immediate threats and to play it repeatedly, each new save file with a different goal. This works across all Paradox games: it's how I learned HOI4, Crusader Kings and Victoria 3.
I mostly learned EU5 by playing Scotland and trade-focused Baltic Sea nations like Denmark and Novgorod over and over. Each time I would think "Okay, this session I want to master trade." Or "This session, I want to get a hang of developing my resources." It takes time but eventually you know enough to pick whatever nation you want and understand what you're supposed to do.
Other than that? Watch videos but don't glaze over watching entire 40 minute guides, it's better to open some up in your Steam overlay and keep referring back as you play; you can pause, slow down and speed up the game at will remember, there's no rush, just take your time.
As a die hard Stellaris player, what keeps other paradox games from clicking for me is how the systems seem too buried under the simulation.
I liked your review on this because it provides some better perspective on how EUV actually plays instead of the usual chatter of discussing how granular the pop simulation is or what have you. Trying to read about this game most of the time gives me RDR2 horse testicles flashbacks.
I never could get into Stellaris, I think it's a really good game but without being grounded in history and that simulation it struggles to connect with me. The space battles are great though.
I feel the same way, I'm not impressed by super granular details for the most part, I'm much more interested in how they effect the moment to moment strategy, I'm glad you liked the review :)
I've only ever played CK but always had an eye on the other games, never deciding between EU, HOI and Victoria. Which one would you say feels the most complete?
P.D: The Spaniards will always go for gold, that is immutable
Great question, it's quite an interesting one to answer.
So, out of the modern crop of Paradox games: CK3, Victoria 3, HOI4 and EU5 by my definition, Hearts Of Iron 4 is the oldest and most content rich but since it is entirely focused around warfare and following linear focus trees it has much less depth than the others and sometimes can feel a little bit like an RTS; I love HOI4: got 2000+ hours in it but lately the DLC has been poor and expensive so I haven't touched it for a while.
Victoria 3 is still quite new and I'd describe it as an uneven experience. The simulation, politics, economics and diplomacy have come a long way since launch but the AI might be the most annoying of the bunch and the warfare system is HORRENDOUS.
EU4 will of course feel more complete than EU5 but I also find it to be intensely frustrating and the overreliance on currencies like the MANA system, Doom, Ducats, favours etc. make it something I'm not keen to go back to. I prefer EU5 already.
TL;DR: HOI4 is the most complete but is less complex so it might not feel like it, Victoria 3 is all over the place but a good game with a lot of depth in certain areas, EU4 isn't something I want to revisit, if you have the hankering, go with EU5
Fantastic review, but it got me wanting to try EU4 :P I never played a game in the series, should I start elsewhere? Cheers!
Cheers to you too!
If you want a more content-rich game, an experience that resembles a tabletop strategy game more closely and like the idea of progressing through a tree of missions and mini-objectives then play EU4.
If you want to govern a nation in incredible detail, freedom to pursue your own objectives, a more fair difficulty level with less 'gamey mechanics' and don't mind some growing pains then play EU5.
Sounds awesome, thanks for the intel!
Awesome review. Still putting off my own first campaign until free time becomes less scarce, but I'm glad to hear that Paradox acquitted themselves relatively well this time around. Might hold off for a major content update or two just to let them sand down the rough edges somewhat.
Since I know you sunk some time into Imperator and Victorias 2 and 3, curious about how you reckon the new POP system stacks up against those three games. Does it feel like an evolution of those games' POP mechanics or does it feel like something new altogether that's particular to EU5?
Thank you! I know the big 1.1 patch is due sometime in February and the first DLC (centred around the alliance between Scotland and France I believe) will likely be soon after so it won't be too long until we see some much needed polish.
On a scale of complexity, I'd say that EU5 is the most complex rendition of this POP system with Stellaris at the bottom of the scale and Victoria 3 in-between. I wouldn't say it's an outright evolution, only that it's deeper; the simulation is more complex but you don't necessarily need to know what every moving part is to effectively govern.
I have no idea how the language/dialect mechanics work but haven't ever had much trouble culturally supplanting the populace in new territory like Granada as Castile or my local tribes as Mali for example.
I think it will be a great game, like, six months to a year from now and I’m very confident it’ll get there. I’ve gone cold on it after playing quite a bit for the first few weeks after launch - the fact that in 9 out of 10 games France and Bohemia would quickly be unstoppable just makes things a bit predictable for me.
That being said, your article makes me want to come back to it soon!
Me too, the foundation is a lot stronger than say, Vicky 3 or CK3, those games launched with a lot missing whereas EU5 has it all there, just in rough shape in a lot of ways; I'm looking forward to the Andes getting another once over, it's basically unplayable there right now which is a crying shame.
I think February will be the next big patch and the first DLC can't be far off either, you'll get your chance :)
Now I'm looking forward to My First 250 Hours Of EU5, where you invert every opinion from this and declare the game unsalvageable before playing it for another 250 hours.
Literally EU5 reddit
As someone who likes to bring order to chaos, I think these Paradox games would stress me out too much, haha. Too much to keep track of, my poor brain!
I do enjoy reading your reviews about them though. Crazy that you can put 100+ hours into the game and still call it a preliminary review!
Haha they can be a handful and there are definitely times where I have to pause it and have a small existential crisis.
I'm glad you enjoy the read even if you don't end up playing them. It is crazy how long these take to learn, I've barely scratched the surface
Any advice for actually getting into these games? I love reading about him, but always bounce hard any time I try to play them
My advice would be to pick a smaller nation, preferably without any immediate threats and to play it repeatedly, each new save file with a different goal. This works across all Paradox games: it's how I learned HOI4, Crusader Kings and Victoria 3.
I mostly learned EU5 by playing Scotland and trade-focused Baltic Sea nations like Denmark and Novgorod over and over. Each time I would think "Okay, this session I want to master trade." Or "This session, I want to get a hang of developing my resources." It takes time but eventually you know enough to pick whatever nation you want and understand what you're supposed to do.
Other than that? Watch videos but don't glaze over watching entire 40 minute guides, it's better to open some up in your Steam overlay and keep referring back as you play; you can pause, slow down and speed up the game at will remember, there's no rush, just take your time.
As a die hard Stellaris player, what keeps other paradox games from clicking for me is how the systems seem too buried under the simulation.
I liked your review on this because it provides some better perspective on how EUV actually plays instead of the usual chatter of discussing how granular the pop simulation is or what have you. Trying to read about this game most of the time gives me RDR2 horse testicles flashbacks.
I never could get into Stellaris, I think it's a really good game but without being grounded in history and that simulation it struggles to connect with me. The space battles are great though.
I feel the same way, I'm not impressed by super granular details for the most part, I'm much more interested in how they effect the moment to moment strategy, I'm glad you liked the review :)
I've only ever played CK but always had an eye on the other games, never deciding between EU, HOI and Victoria. Which one would you say feels the most complete?
P.D: The Spaniards will always go for gold, that is immutable
Great question, it's quite an interesting one to answer.
So, out of the modern crop of Paradox games: CK3, Victoria 3, HOI4 and EU5 by my definition, Hearts Of Iron 4 is the oldest and most content rich but since it is entirely focused around warfare and following linear focus trees it has much less depth than the others and sometimes can feel a little bit like an RTS; I love HOI4: got 2000+ hours in it but lately the DLC has been poor and expensive so I haven't touched it for a while.
Victoria 3 is still quite new and I'd describe it as an uneven experience. The simulation, politics, economics and diplomacy have come a long way since launch but the AI might be the most annoying of the bunch and the warfare system is HORRENDOUS.
EU4 will of course feel more complete than EU5 but I also find it to be intensely frustrating and the overreliance on currencies like the MANA system, Doom, Ducats, favours etc. make it something I'm not keen to go back to. I prefer EU5 already.
TL;DR: HOI4 is the most complete but is less complex so it might not feel like it, Victoria 3 is all over the place but a good game with a lot of depth in certain areas, EU4 isn't something I want to revisit, if you have the hankering, go with EU5