I just wanted to say thank you for all the time and thoughtfulness you put into these game reviews. I only discovered you about a week ago but I've read through about five of these now and I cannot get enough. I'm really grateful.
You've managed that many already? What a trooper. Really happy to hear you appreciate the reviews, I never like to be one of these writers who whines and complains (because I love writing) but they do genuinely take a long time to make: about 3-4 hours of writing per-day.
Next review will be Metal Gear Solid Delta, I aim to post lighter articles midweek and big reviews on Friday or Saturday.
I've entered a weird stage in life. I'm older. I have kids now and rarely get to play new games. I've found I can replace the joy I used to find in them by reading reviews from others who've spent the time to really understand all the nuances and complexities that make games so interesting for all of us in the first place. Long way of saying, keep up the excellent work. I really enjoy hearing about everything, including all the frustrations that come with a game like this one.
I have the mixed fortune of being an older Gen Z: aged 25 and born in the year 2000, on one hand I remember a world without smartphones, YouTube, LCD's and the internet being everywhere but at the same time I had what should have been the best years of my young adult life obliterated by the pandemic; I've always loved writing and I've always loved video games but it wasn't until the pandemic that I started to ask deeper questions and look at a lot of it critically. I also became a retro gamer around this time. This is a long way of saying I think my critical lens hasn't been destroyed by toxic internet discourse and I'm at an age as to where I'm free enough to pour a lot of time into video games but older readers take what I say seriously.
There's much more to come I assure you, it won't always be these long Paradox reviews but I always try to delve into as much detail as I can.
Modding EU3's map to add some mostly forgotten HRE fief will always be one of my fondest memories regarding Western grand-strategy games, I haven't dabbled with EU4 the same way but I still had a lot of fun with it years after it was released, even if I was also unimpressed by some of the AI issues you outlined and ended up not engaging with most of its DLCs.
Enjoyed the review, even if I'm a little late getting to it.
EU is my second-favorite Paradox series, after CK. So I'm not quite as negative as you are here, even if I can appreciate many of these gripes. I played EU3 a lot, possibly more than EU4, though I didn't have it on Steam -- I think it was an actual CD-ROM -- so can't compare hours. I picked up EU4 pretty early and still play it occasionally, had a run last year, but I stopped keeping up with DLC in 2015 and still play a beta version from that time. Which is a feature I'm grateful to Paradox for maintaining, to at least keep these games playable for those that fall off the DLC wagon.
So your EU4 is probably a very different game from my EU4 in some respects. I have no idea what features from the past 10 years I'm even missing out on. I know there's a whole "estates" thing I've never experienced.
I agree that EU4 can be an absolutely devastating game. For that reason, I usually don't ironman it and I save-scum frequently, while I have ironmanned CK exclusively for a long time. In CK, losing control of a continental empire and being reduced to a single county ruled by an ugly slow-witted 10-year-old is actually pretty awesome, those times that it happens. This sort of thing is never awesome in EU4.
It's more for that reason, than the reason you state, that having a bad king feels so bad to me in EU4. I enjoy the RP of the bad king in CK whose reign focuses on struggling, and often failing, to hold the realm together. I don't need a dull king to turn out to be a superstar for that game to be fun. But in EU4, a bad king usually represents just an annoying slowdown to my expansion, and what else is there to do in EU but expand?
Another part of this is that in CK, there's a symmetry to these great reversals. A kingdom can be suddenly and dramatically won, just as it can be suddenly and dramatically lost.
I also haven't played much as minor countries in EU4, to be honest. I remember lots of runs in EU3 where I did things like form Germany from an OPM, but I guess for me that itch was scratched, many of the same frustrations you describe were there in that game too, and I generally have played EU4 for power runs as major countries. Usually those aren't quite as prone to single solitary events derailing the entire run as with OPMs, especially if you save-scum around risky wars.
Funnily enough, CK was my favourite too for the longest time but for reasons I'll cover in an upcoming review, I've kind of fallen out of love with that series.
Couldn't agree more on that front, in other Paradox games, failure feels like part of the gameplay loop to me; in HOI4 for example, the game tends to get interesting when the AI manage to push you back or hold you up but in EU4? It feels like a game over screen, I can really see why you'd save scum, was half-tempted myself.
Very good point here too. I like 'blobbing' a lot in EU4 because it's so clear that expansion is the name of the game, that's why other playstyles feel so dull and the random stats feel so punishing, it's like losing the ability to jump in a platformer.
This might be a big part of the issue too, I almost exclusively play middle/minor powers in Paradox games, except for HOI4 where my second most-played country is the USSR, in EU4 the minor powers are essentially just an opportunity for the bigger ones to get more land.
I absolutely love the way strategy game AIs sometimes seem to have particular grudges against human players, to the point that they will act incredibly stupidly and vindictively just to ruin the day for the fool who inserted himself into their simulation.
Interested to try EU5 cause thematically this seems really cool. In regards to the bad alliance rng ending your run, is it not possible to just develop in a different direction? Or is the game not really flexible enough for that?
You certainly can develop/conquest in other areas but without the benefits of completing missions on a tree and if your nation isn't built for a certain kind of play, you end up really badly hamstrung.
I'm going to see if I can get a review code for it, it's a slim chance but I was going to buy it anyway, so nothing to lose.
I just wanted to say thank you for all the time and thoughtfulness you put into these game reviews. I only discovered you about a week ago but I've read through about five of these now and I cannot get enough. I'm really grateful.
You've managed that many already? What a trooper. Really happy to hear you appreciate the reviews, I never like to be one of these writers who whines and complains (because I love writing) but they do genuinely take a long time to make: about 3-4 hours of writing per-day.
Next review will be Metal Gear Solid Delta, I aim to post lighter articles midweek and big reviews on Friday or Saturday.
I've entered a weird stage in life. I'm older. I have kids now and rarely get to play new games. I've found I can replace the joy I used to find in them by reading reviews from others who've spent the time to really understand all the nuances and complexities that make games so interesting for all of us in the first place. Long way of saying, keep up the excellent work. I really enjoy hearing about everything, including all the frustrations that come with a game like this one.
I have the mixed fortune of being an older Gen Z: aged 25 and born in the year 2000, on one hand I remember a world without smartphones, YouTube, LCD's and the internet being everywhere but at the same time I had what should have been the best years of my young adult life obliterated by the pandemic; I've always loved writing and I've always loved video games but it wasn't until the pandemic that I started to ask deeper questions and look at a lot of it critically. I also became a retro gamer around this time. This is a long way of saying I think my critical lens hasn't been destroyed by toxic internet discourse and I'm at an age as to where I'm free enough to pour a lot of time into video games but older readers take what I say seriously.
There's much more to come I assure you, it won't always be these long Paradox reviews but I always try to delve into as much detail as I can.
Modding EU3's map to add some mostly forgotten HRE fief will always be one of my fondest memories regarding Western grand-strategy games, I haven't dabbled with EU4 the same way but I still had a lot of fun with it years after it was released, even if I was also unimpressed by some of the AI issues you outlined and ended up not engaging with most of its DLCs.
It’s a game I have a whole lot of respect for but I’m ready to leave it behind now, it is noticeably dated along with these issues
Enjoyed the review, even if I'm a little late getting to it.
EU is my second-favorite Paradox series, after CK. So I'm not quite as negative as you are here, even if I can appreciate many of these gripes. I played EU3 a lot, possibly more than EU4, though I didn't have it on Steam -- I think it was an actual CD-ROM -- so can't compare hours. I picked up EU4 pretty early and still play it occasionally, had a run last year, but I stopped keeping up with DLC in 2015 and still play a beta version from that time. Which is a feature I'm grateful to Paradox for maintaining, to at least keep these games playable for those that fall off the DLC wagon.
So your EU4 is probably a very different game from my EU4 in some respects. I have no idea what features from the past 10 years I'm even missing out on. I know there's a whole "estates" thing I've never experienced.
I agree that EU4 can be an absolutely devastating game. For that reason, I usually don't ironman it and I save-scum frequently, while I have ironmanned CK exclusively for a long time. In CK, losing control of a continental empire and being reduced to a single county ruled by an ugly slow-witted 10-year-old is actually pretty awesome, those times that it happens. This sort of thing is never awesome in EU4.
It's more for that reason, than the reason you state, that having a bad king feels so bad to me in EU4. I enjoy the RP of the bad king in CK whose reign focuses on struggling, and often failing, to hold the realm together. I don't need a dull king to turn out to be a superstar for that game to be fun. But in EU4, a bad king usually represents just an annoying slowdown to my expansion, and what else is there to do in EU but expand?
Another part of this is that in CK, there's a symmetry to these great reversals. A kingdom can be suddenly and dramatically won, just as it can be suddenly and dramatically lost.
I also haven't played much as minor countries in EU4, to be honest. I remember lots of runs in EU3 where I did things like form Germany from an OPM, but I guess for me that itch was scratched, many of the same frustrations you describe were there in that game too, and I generally have played EU4 for power runs as major countries. Usually those aren't quite as prone to single solitary events derailing the entire run as with OPMs, especially if you save-scum around risky wars.
Glad to hear it!
Funnily enough, CK was my favourite too for the longest time but for reasons I'll cover in an upcoming review, I've kind of fallen out of love with that series.
Couldn't agree more on that front, in other Paradox games, failure feels like part of the gameplay loop to me; in HOI4 for example, the game tends to get interesting when the AI manage to push you back or hold you up but in EU4? It feels like a game over screen, I can really see why you'd save scum, was half-tempted myself.
Very good point here too. I like 'blobbing' a lot in EU4 because it's so clear that expansion is the name of the game, that's why other playstyles feel so dull and the random stats feel so punishing, it's like losing the ability to jump in a platformer.
This might be a big part of the issue too, I almost exclusively play middle/minor powers in Paradox games, except for HOI4 where my second most-played country is the USSR, in EU4 the minor powers are essentially just an opportunity for the bigger ones to get more land.
I absolutely love the way strategy game AIs sometimes seem to have particular grudges against human players, to the point that they will act incredibly stupidly and vindictively just to ruin the day for the fool who inserted himself into their simulation.
Then EU4 is the game for you, there is even evidence that they get preferential dice rolls against the player
Interested to try EU5 cause thematically this seems really cool. In regards to the bad alliance rng ending your run, is it not possible to just develop in a different direction? Or is the game not really flexible enough for that?
You certainly can develop/conquest in other areas but without the benefits of completing missions on a tree and if your nation isn't built for a certain kind of play, you end up really badly hamstrung.
I'm going to see if I can get a review code for it, it's a slim chance but I was going to buy it anyway, so nothing to lose.