The Top 14 Things That EU3 Does Better Than EU4 - Part 1

Sometimes it's useful to go back to previous games in a series to see what's changed, whether for the better or for the worse. This is not to say that EU3 is a better game than EU4, but there are some pretty important things that I believe have been taken in a wrong direction.
Europa Universalis 3 is "Copyright © 2010 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com"
Europa Universalis 4 is "Copyright © 2015-2016 Paradox Interactive AB. www.paradoxplaza.com"

[@michaelbeaud7661]

I have grown considerably frustrated with EU4 over the years, as I started to pile up thousands of hours of gameplay. CK2 never gave me this feeling, as eventhough the randomness might be frustrating sometimes, it always keeps the player immersed, and prevents from minmaxing am calculating every move instead of planning the unpredictable. Your video is the perfect explanation to all the unease and boredom I started to feel in EU4, so I would hope (without any actual belief) that Paradox would hear you for eu5... but I am not doubting much here. Eu4 has become a click-to-win game lately, especially with all the new button-DLCs

[@cageybee7221]

i did learn a rediculous trick with CK2, if you play as a nomadic ruler but you don't keep any nomadic lands and stick to conquering feudal or tribal you can keep a balance of holdings in each province. specifically 2. 2 is the lowest number you can hold before you get unrest from nomads and since more empty holdings=more nomad population=bigger army and income you want to reduce it to 2 through pillaging which also makes you richer. additionally you can build temples in tribal lands to give them 2 holdings and own them. combined with the insane invasion CBs nomads get you can hold most of the world in your nomadic demesne with only penalties to your levies and taxes, but since nomad pop and nomad tax replace those you only need levies for garrisons. thus owning the entire world is very possible and very fun. main problems with this; - no garrisons. - no levies - very few ships - waaay to many holdings to manage, will likely end up not developing most of them. - massive list of titles, the game was not built for you to hold so many counties at once like this. the lists become painfully long. main advantages; - i conquered the entire peak abbasid empire in 1 war, only took 20 years and the entire muslim world was mine. i then pillaged all the provinces down to 2 holdings and made 100k gold, 50k prestige, alot of rebels who died easily to my giant hordes, and i got 1,000,000 nomad pop and tons of horde units and nomad taxes. - you are unstoppable with a massive horde army, go in hard on the heavy cavalry trust me

[@smantheman2312]

@@cageybee7221 man replied with an essay to a 2yr old comment lmaoo

[@Aurinkohirvi]

What is CK2?

[@cageybee7221]

@@Aurinkohirvi it's a game where you play as a dynasty of medievel rulers

[@Aurinkohirvi]

@@cageybee7221 Don't remember the name of the game?

[@seaofscissors]

for someone who hasnt played eu4 yet, but has dumped tons of time into eu3, this video made me appreciate a lot of stuff in eu3 i didnt notice.

[@BlindRaven]

In theory I like institutions a lot more than old-style westernization, and at least for western nations I like the system a lot. It feels much more organic than the old system. I think they just need to spread slower into the ROTW, maybe using the old tech groups to achieve this.

[@Gakumerasara]

If you've played MEIOU & Taxes mod, I think their approach works really well: instead of replacing tech groups with institutions, they retained the old tech system underneath and added institutions on top of it. The institution system on its own is a decent idea that just needs a bit of work, but I don't think it's a good replacement for westernization - which is how it was implemented.

[@BlindRaven]

I haven't tried that mod. I always consider it, but I don't have the best computer and I've heard that it really bogs the game down performance-wise. Is that reputation overblown?

[@Gakumerasara]

On my computer, it runs very slowly compared to vanilla. However, because there's so much stuff going on compared to vanilla, it doesn't feel as slow as it really is, and I still enjoy it quite a bit.

[@lastresort1plays]

Gakumerasara would this mod work for the eu in the grand campaign?

[@Gakumerasara]

Definitely not since it adds TONS of new provinces and wouldn't be compatible with the converter. Plus it's doubtful it would work in multiplayer at all due to the sheer amount of 'stuff' happening in the game.

[@yuetiansiah8602]

I really miss the button to create my own nod trade center.

[@aitormenta3633]

@Deamonias it's a whole lot better with the MEIOU mod. Especially if you (like me) have a potato PC

[@darkfireslide]

I've seen this argument before, and while I can understand why people hate monarch points, it's also honestly nice to have certainty in a lot of things in a strategy game. Crusader Kings II can be infuriating at times when somehow your 20 diplomacy chancellor can't fabricate a claim despite having like, what, a 25% chance yearly or something like that? Another counter-argument I have is that not knowing how the diplomacy works doesn't change the system. Other Paradox grand strategy games work the same way, but the older ones don't show you the reasoning for the AI. Knowing why a country, or AI would want to be your ally or not is useful information that improves the flow of the game. Pre-Institution Westernization was a garbage system that generally ruined the countries that used them--compared to Victoria II's system especially. They cost so many points that even after westernizing, it was typically impossible to catch up with Western nations. Something else about EU4 is that many more of the systems are crystal clear on how they work, and give the player much more to actively /do/ instead of just watch. I'm not much of a minmaxer, honestly. But the uncertainty of older grand strategy, and the sheer number of dice rolls drive me crazy sometimes, especially in games like CKII. I understand if you like those systems, but in a strategy game it can be very frustrating sometimes.

[@Gakumerasara]

There's a difference between saying "this nation won't ally me because X" and "this nation won't ally me because X, but if I tweak modifiers to get exactly Y points they will accept anyway". I don't have a problem with the first, in which you have only a general idea of the modifiers. The second is a problem in my opinion and makes it a game of spreadsheet management. Maybe it shouldn't be easy to catch up to the Western nations? True, it does give you more to do, but it's also true that you could do these same things even if you didn't know the exact modifiers. The only difference is that you wouldn't have a guaranteed outcome. CK2 is a good example as it takes it to the opposite extreme. I'm not a big fan of CK2, not because of the randomness itself, but because of the effects of the randomness being so extreme. It makes sense, but I don't think it makes for good gameplay. Somewhere in between the extremes would probably be my ideal in both cases.

[@darkfireslide]

An example of showing the why, but not the weight of the why, is the Total War series, where the AI has completely arbitrary factors when it comes to trade and alliances. In EU4 it's extremely nice to know to what degree my army size, religion, etc factor into my ability to get an alliance. I agree that institutions spread too fast, but old Westernization was stupid. Like in Victoria II there should be benefits for adopting advanced ideas, not a slew of -1 stability and -40 army tradition every few months for 12-20 years. That rant aside, I can at least understand where you're coming from. Some variability is a good thing. And a final note, development probably is the gamiest thing about EU4. An idea I had would be to make it so that every time you increase development it takes 3-5 years per point, instead of doubling your economy overnight. Easy fixes, but I dunno about the direction EU4 is heading right now.

[@Gakumerasara]

Hmmm.... Yeah, I could see that. But then I'm reminded of when I see that -1 and think to myself, always annoyed, "ok, guess I'll build 1 more unit than I'd like to" or "I'll send a diplomat to improve relations for 2-3 months". In cases like these, the answer "maybe" makes a lot more sense than "100% no" flipping overnight to "100% yes". Victoria 2 has the benefit of literacy scaling over time, not to mention clergy (and clerk) % being something you have a considerable amount of control over. In EU4, this scaling is gone because it's all tied to your leader stats - which you have little control over and isn't scalable. So your options are: 1) choose certain ideas for a static % modifier or 2) intentionally fall behind for the neighbor bonus. I don't think either of these are good solutions. I'm not sure what your opinion of MEIOU & Taxes might be, but I think it at least addresses most of the issues I have, and I think it improves on many of the problems. It has some issues of its own, but over all I think it's a huge step in the right direction. It's pretty much all I play at this point.

[@darkfireslide]

I haven't yet given M&T a try yet, though a ton of people have recommended it to me and I've even watched Reman's review of it. It comes down to personal taste, I guess, and with monarch points the game feels much more active than most grand strategy, but I can definitely understand why people like many subsystems that gradually increase or decrease. But I hate sliders. That shit is just arcane.

[@shuriken188]

darkfireslide Sliders are god-like, the traitorous Paradox developers have converted from Sliderism to a heretic system! WE MUST BEGIN A CRUSADE UPON PARADOX HQ! TO SWEDEN! DEUS SLIDE! JOIN US IN THE CRUSADE AND REDEEM YOURSELF IN THE EYES OF THE SLIDERS!

[@ashtheslayer3781]

11:25 EU4: France WILL join your war, but they'll sit on their ass in Paris and never move

[@LosNiggaRO]

For me EU3 really felt like an open world game where i do whatever i want. With eu4 i feel like i'm in a linear game, WHy do i have to chose rivals and enemies? And the missions they give you..

[@NotKnafo]

now missions in eu4 became a replica of the hoi4 focus tree

[@Svampen87]

I miss EU3.. Never really got into EU4 because of abstract monarch points that i felt mostly were implemented for multiplayer balance.. EU3 Navarran colonizing games were the most fun i've ever had in a video game. Leave continental europe asap, conquer america then go ahead bully the europeans for the rest of the game.

[@sebuktegin4403]

I did that with Ragusa once

[@aitormenta3633]

@@sebuktegin4403 hey, I did that too! Ragusan Brazil owning America from the Patagonia to Newfoundland, whooping british ass on the sea with my fleet deathstacks was a sight to behold

[@papagaiofilmes6642]

Just like Spain irl

[@antonino6485]

i really hope that if they ever do an EU5, they scrap the mana system and some of the random events ( -haha 6/6/6 go huntin accident- )

[@HistorianTrevi]

Finally someone who, in part, shares my thought! Thanks for sharing! I mentioned in part because, to me, eu3 is actually better than eu4. First things first eu3 can be bought as a finished game and its path to an end-state was divided in a reasonable number of steps (can't remember if in nomine, napoamb, dvine wind etc were marketed as dlc or as expansion but they sure came in an age of initial transioning by paradox) while eu4 has countless dlc, there's no apparent end to them and in some cases they introduced mechanics that drastically changed gameplay or broke it (for example fort system and many starting dates don't seem to coexist well -thanks for the tip isorrowproductions). Secondly but most importantly I can't relate, at all, with this "minmax" approach! I think that eu3 has a much greater replayability, the mtth mechanic oftentimes made campaigns unique and it was a pleasure to watch bizarre geopolitcal feats carried out by the AI. The role of chance really contributed to a more dynamic and realistic feel while eu3 nation management system, in the vast majority of cases to me, felt like completely being in control. The challenge was provided by the fusion of these concepts: while given the tools you were to move inside a dynamic and in many ways unpredictable environment and an ability to counterreact to unforeseen circumstances was a staple skill to posess, not to mention once you developed the right approach, more often than no to me, dealing with every unlucky event became a rewarding experience. In eu4 on the contrary the monarch points system doesn't feel like i'm in control at all...with bad luck I can achieve three pieces of trash of rulers in a row while the AI gets perfect ones creating a huge, frustrating unreasonable gap. Now, this can be partly overcome with skill and experience but I find that one big random handicap heavily influencing gameplay (given the importance of monarch points on every aspect of the game) is not my thing. Last but not least not only I feel way less in control than necessary but also the world feels like way less dynamic too. As stated in the video strong nations are railroaded towards their real historical destiny and that's it, no thrill, no wondering, it feels scripted! For instance I admit I didn't play eu4 a lot but enough to say that I swear I NEVER saw a game in which Burgundy survived...we're not talking about Trier or Yaroslavl but about a big player in the geopolitics of the time. Eu3 was way more interesting, a power like Burgundy had chances to make a real turn in history and kept you wondering for several decedas about who could triumph between them and France. Now their king just dies and the land gets split between France and Austria. Boring as hell, happening every game. In conclusion to me paradox decided to almost "script" big nations and to add an absurd microcontrolling emphasised system to appease those players who don't have the time to deal with chance, thry need results, quick, and they need to know when they get them. Paradox probably felt that mtth system discouraged the casual player and lowered their sales. In a way as, again, stated in the video eu4 feels like interacting with algorithms, performing routines yourself and also reassuring, knowing you have to wait a definite amount of time. Almost seems like work to me. Forgive me for my verbosity and feel free to disprove my point or teach me if the latest dlcs have made eu4 absolutely fantastic because I ditched it kinda early.

[@shydra3897]

Culture Changes. EU4: It will happen on this exact date at this exact time and all this will happen perfectly. EU3: Ehhhh give it 200 years and it should work.

[@G3E007]

y play eu3 and culture conversion takes less than 50 years shut up kiddo :)

[@shydra3897]

@@G3E007 Yes you can do the settlement act to change the culture, but IMO i dont find it worth it to take the negitives the game gives for a change of culture.

[@G3E007]

@@shydra3897 the negatives for a different culture is worse lol

[@KingOskar4]

16:50 So it will take just 27 years to convert the most populous province from one chinese culture to another chinese culture, that made me giggle, how it doesn't make sense, 27 years for "culture assimilation" as I call it is too little. Great video by the way, I like it.

[@Ghost-vi8qm]

I am leaving EU4 for EU3 now for good! Its ridiculous they made African and Asian nations tech wise on par with Europeans.

[@arrowslinger2460]

Idk try playing as an african nation even with the same tech level as euros your soldiers are just way worse - huge difference in pips

[@makaramuss]

I think missions are actually meant for AI thinking... AI is more focused on misions. and game want you to consider actions of AI would take by rewarding you doing them too :D

[@deeznoots6241]

I gotta say the only issue the EU3 mission system ever has is that sometimes you can get the blockade mission to chain, and since its 20 free ducats for moving ships into a province it can very easily be exploited. Once as Sweden i managed to save up over a thousand ducats in a war just by putting my fleet in patrol while blockade missions kept coming in one after the other which considering that it was pretty early game was a massive boost

[@recluse4575]

Just look at Hearts of Iron 4 and you will see most obviously which direction paradox is going. I started out paradox games with darkest hour and was attracted to it because of its complex and challenging ww2 simulation. With HOI4 it is WAY simpler version of it and they are doing this with all their games in order to attract more sales. Their idea is that the simpler the game is, the more people that will want to play it, and we will never see a vicky 3 because they refuse to make something more complex, since according to their idea sales with plummet. Yet despite this negative corporative impact of a larger gaming studio, what I also like about paradox games is that it is completely open to the modding community, which unfortunately people that know how to make a game more complex and better are unpaid and therefore more unmotivated to actually do it

[@Gakumerasara]

I still haven't played HoI4, but I tend to agree with you on most of what you've said. The one glaring exception to the idea that Paradox wants to make things simpler is - oddly enough - EU4. Initially, EU4 was a much simpler game than EU3:DW, but in its current state, EU4 is substantially more complex and incredibly difficult to learn/master, thanks mostly to all of the overlapping systems that have been piled on top of each other.

[@jkahgdkjhafgsd]

the constant updates and DLC spam are a big issue for modders, due to the time it takes to update it, and how quickly it needs to be updated

[@ausintune9014]

Hoi 3 was complete shit at launch

[@Sammyli99]

Paradox are indeed a Paradox. If you compare how they take a base game and by the time they have finished unless you have played 500 hours, you will have NO idea of the best strategy, HOWEVER...this to a large extent resembles LIFE: simple if you ignore the detail. I really enjoy their games...but just starting on EU4 having played EU3...where are the opening buildings...I used to love collecting the University provinces...and manufactories.

[@lucasart328]

just lile the total war series i guess

I loved EU3, but uncertainty was awful - it just promoted "WTF, that makes no sense, reload autosave". It was a great thing they fixed it. In EU4 interacting with AI feels like interacting with very calculating AI - all the "we'll join your war if you repay our debt" or "we'll ally you if you improve your reputation" moments are just great. In EU3 it felt like interacting with RNG rolling idiot with zero strategy involved. It's not just EU4, most games figured out too much RNG in AI is just awful. For another example early Civ5 had extremely RNG-heavy AI, everybody absolutely despised it, so they fixed it into AI based on meaningful understandable factors (which still has a lot of RNG involved).

[@Gakumerasara]

God mode exists in games because some people feel empowered when they use it. If cheating your way through a grandstrategy game floats your boat, by all means don't let me stop you. I don't know how many hours of EU4 you've played, but after several thousand I can safely say that some aspects of Europa Spreadsheetversalis 4 do not appeal to me, and certainty is a really big part of it.

[@Aurinkohirvi]

What's RNG? Trying to learn game concepts here.

@@Aurinkohirvi Random Number Generator. Some games just roll dice too much.

[@Aurinkohirvi]

@ Ah, randomizers are familiar to me, I've programmed with a few language, but "RNG" was not familiar to me before. I see that's the expression used in English.

[@theprussianmink]

Great video! My biggest disagreement with your points is regarding the rng elements of EU3. I agree that some random elements should have been in EU4, for instance with regards to rebels spawning. But in diplomacy it makes no sense that your ally will dishonor your alliance 10% of the time even when they have to rational reason to do so. Even from an immersive point of view, you wouldn't try to call your allies into an offensive war before actually talking to them first and hearing their motivations for joining or not. I think this is something that EU4 does a lot better than EU3.

[@Gakumerasara]

That is a valid argument, though I have to point out that people are also capable of lying about what they are going to do. And this is diplomacy we're talking about, which is like... deception and lying to the extreme. As such, it would probably be more realistic if the game intentionally mislead you from time to time.

[@Gakumerasara]

It just depends on the player I think. Different styles and expectations. Also we tried an anonymous game of Vic2 a long time ago. makes diplomacy very difficult and people figure out who you are within a couple of sessions, kind of defeating the purpose

[@RocketHarry865]

I think they need to bring back some of the eu3 mechanics to eu4

[@hlibushok]

So you suggest to replace all the "click, wait to fill up a progress bar" systems with how colonization works? Agree. There probably should be more of a balance between 3's population and 4's development, like in Victoria 2. There definitely should be a balance between certainty and uncertainty. Knowing everything three steps ahead is boring, but not knowing what will happen if you click a button is also not very good. I wish EU had a thing similar to HoI4's "historical focus" - if you want achievements and immersion - turn it on, if you want fun and alternate history - turn it off.

[@Gakumerasara]

Just knowing the percent chances could be a decent improvement. I think most Paradox games could be improved with a "historical focus" option, but I guess players have generally handled that issue with mods.

[@Adusakful]

"When he doesn't accept you have to adapt" Alright "save before offering and load and try again"

[@Gakumerasara]

If you're going to cheat anyway, you might as well just tag switch to surrender wars to yourself and skip the whole diplo-annexation process.

[@arcanegianterinokripperino9945]

theres a difference between cheating on the AI by reloading the game and outright cheating by using the console... the AI cheats aswell... never forget that

[@Gakumerasara]

Fundamentally, I disagree. In both cases you have bypassed the intended mechanics of the game to do something that would otherwise not happen. If you get lucky and manage to diploannex successfully, great. If you're unlucky but then reroll it over and over until you get the outcome you want, then you have removed the intended function of the probability distribution. The AI cheating is an "intended" if often annoying game mechanic. The player cheating is not. Also, I can't find your other comment, but no, I vastly prefer very hard mode in vanilla EU4 - especially in multiplayer. Even so, I don't think it does enough to balance the game.

[@eduardoborges506]

spoken like a true gentleman.

[@youtuberobbedmeofmyname]

@@tj12711 Nice try but EU is not 4x. It's grand strategy.

[@steinardarri]

Seems like #14 and #13 have been improved in EU4 1.20 with the devastation mechanic and movement reduction on scorched earth.

[@KubiG1000]

Devastation is pointless, I rarely see having it any notable impact on my provinces. Mostly because nearby forts can reduce it so quickly, anyway HOW the hell can a medieval castle aid a province dozens of miles away recover faster?

[@jamesmcbride7758]

I quite liked the video and it was interesting to find out more about past games. Personally, I class myself as part of the problem. I like a certain level of depth but I do not want to sit for hours looking at a spreadsheet. Jokes aside if Paradox did not make their games with a nice level of entrance then I would just not buy them and I am sure that a large part of the market would do the same. A good compromise for both sets of people was if they made a DLC that made the game harder if you wished for that experience. So you would have people come in and learn the base game before they then can try the harder mode.

[@Zhedox]

EU3 was actually my first Paradox game. I remember in mid 2014, I didn't really want to buy EU4 with all the DLC it had at the time so, I just pirated this. My pirated version didn't have Divine Wind, so I eventually bought EU3 on Steam (also out of guilt), and then bought EU4 a couple of months after saying "eh, why not".

[@ausintune9014]

Zhedox it has more dlc so fuck me

[@Zhedox]

EU4 or EU3?

[@markhirsch6301]

Zhedox I swear most strategy series are dumbing themselves down recently as this video shows EU and total war is another example

[@Zhedox]

Couldn't agree more. Hearts of Iron 4 is probably the best example.

[@RC--ji2ov]

Zhedox ironic because hoi4 is paradox aswell lol

[@briancline7349]

One way to look at monarch points is at effort put forth by your administration over time, with results that play out when you assign them; the effects of setting different policies in your cabinet or something. It is abstract, but I think just calling them “McGuffin points” is a little harsh. Also remember that the goal of the game is not always to be 100% realistic, but to be a good game. Plausibility matters but not every factor in the game needs to be directly analogous to how things work or worked in the real world.

[@greeneggsandhamsamiam6154]

The mission trees that have been added in the game are a million times better than the random missions from before.

[@electricpants8194]

Despite these differences, there is no denying EU4 is better and its one of Paradoxes best games.

[@Gakumerasara]

over all, sure. It's certainly a better engine. This video is simply a list of things they "got right" or did better previously. I didn't mention mods at all in this video, but as far as rankings including community changes, it would go something like: EU4 MEIOU & Taxes > EU3 Magna Mundi > EU4 > EU3

[@electricpants8194]

Didn't see you replied. The only thing I can think of to say is thanks for listening to the people who are commenting and stuff like that I guess, not really sure what else to say.

[@electricpants8194]

@C m no not really

[@TTAgostinos]

regarding point 14: 1.20 will add devastation which will be what keeps you out of wars you cannot win.

[@smftrsddvjiou6443]

I got the same issues. The institution system is better, but as you said, it‘s too easy and ahistoriacal It can be modified pretty easy so Paradox decided for map painters.

[@zevooxgames2366]

A very good video and now i must try EU III :P

[@PyroNexus22]

as a fan of CK2, I actually prefer the culture system from EU4, cause at least you can let the cultures stay as they are. In CK2 they just flip randomly and very quickly tbh. As you said, it's supposed to happen very rarely. IMO it would be best if there were ways to link the conquered culture with your culture through different ways, like decisions, maybe monarch points, smth else, I dunno, but it should take a long time, and eventually the culture doesn't flip to your culture, but becomes part of your culture group. But there should also be a forced assimilation option, that makes the process quicker, turns the culture into yours, rather than your group, and raises the revolt risk.

[@UtopiaBasti]

Please try the "Magna Mundi" and "Nede" Mod for EU III. You will like it!

[@Gakumerasara]

Ah yeah, I saw that one. Is that like the current fork of MM? I've been meaning to try it out.

[@UtopiaBasti]

@@Gakumerasara Yeah. A friend of mine modded the MM version with some cool features. forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/magna-mundi-dw-nede-edition-dw-5-2.797405/ Here is the link.

[@voreart8999]

this is pretty good man

[@Gakumerasara]

thanks; glad you like it!

[@axelander9397]

Yeah, I think I will buy EU3 when its on sale to check it out :D

[@GustavSvard]

Thought on Missions 4 years later: Imperator actually did these pretty well. Imperator should be learned from when making EU5 (just as CK3, stellaris & Vicky 3 should also be learned from).

[@damianabregba7476]

I think the best solution in most cases would be mix of certainty and uncertainty. For example rebelion. In addition to precise time when it will 100% happen add small percent chance (like 1%) that it will happen earlier. And maybe that chance will only trigger if progress is higher than 20%. Variables from my ass, but thats just my general idea. As for diplomatic relations certainty could depend on monarch + advisor skill, close relations between countries and spies points. In this way you can be certain of some results if you want, but it makes it costly and potentially not worth it.

[@aethelfrith7376]

Whicg of these were fixed or backed to eu3 condition in a three years?

[@actionhanz3420]

very good stuff. many points are just symptons of our times and many games. the more popular a franchise becomes the more scripted certainty it gets. and lets not forget the constant but ultimately meaningless feedback loop the casual player likes to consume.

[@jez9999]

Makes me glad I didn't ever buy EU4, I just stuck with EU3. I still enjoy it to this day. For me, the #1 reason EU3 is better: the map looks so much nicer. I honestly think EU4 looks horrible compared to EU3. It's noisy, there's too much stuff/icons everywhere, the sea now looks like panes of glass (wtf?), the bump mapping is horrible and the rivers now look like big thick pubic hairs instead of thin blue lines, like... well... rivers should look. It all comes together to make the map look like a confused mess, with province and nation names hard to read. Some terrible graphical design decisions.

[@NuukneinMapping]

Install a graphic mod like everyone

[@toreq1127]

I don't believe this was real

[@hermesi8583]

On culture conversion you can acc culture convert a provinve of total 3 development and than just put monarch point on it. Lets say you cap 999 on every category. You can get a 40+ development converted in 3 years

[@evandexy3059]

The core mission could make it so you a get a cb with 50% ae or 75%-50% coring cost so it would maybe be worth getting the mission

[@Gakumerasara]

MEIOU actually adds some missions of this type and, as expected, they can have an impact on the trajectory of a campaign.

[@TheHylianBatman]

I will say that Crusader Kings II spoiled me with telling me the factors of diplomatic acceptance, and returning to Europa Universalis III afterwards felt sore. I know it's more realistic to not know why you were rejected, and so I can live with it, but still, if they say no, I like knowing what I can do to fix it.

[@crackshack2]

Its because theyre dumbing down their games. Look at Hoi3 and Hoi2 vs Hoi4. I rest my case.

[@alcoolamus4208]

Strong agree on the certainty/uncertainty part and this is what ruins EU4 for me. I really wish there was a way to replace the checkmarks and numbers with a rough estimation like in EU3, that would be a game changer. Pls someone make a mod for that!

[@giadinhhang5988]

sound like attrition in ck2 it killed your army faster than any enemy

[@UCUCUC27]

scorched earth in eu4 was originaly like eu3 they changed it along with devestation which i feel is there attempt to make lasting damage from occupations but as it ddepends on looting its always limited and forts completely ignore it very silly

[@evanmeyer1496]

what mods change these features? i am uhhh 5 years late tho sooo there's meiou and taxes but that mod is clunky and overkill on random stuff Edit: I have started considering to make what i shall call either “ ‘EU3’ the EU4 Overhaul Mod “ or “ The Mean Time to Happen Mod “ depending on how far down the list of changes I make it (if anywhere) My programming experience is quite that of google and brute force testing so it’s gonna be rough tbh but I’ll give it a go. What features do people think would be the most important to change? Ok I’m really struggling with some of the other ideas, especially the ones from the next video and I’m not sure if they even need to be changed; but I’m tired so maybe I’ll come back to this maybe it will just be abandoned forever haha.

[@evanmeyer1496]

1) I’m planning to start by making culture and religious conversion a mean time to happen system on a much longer scale. religious conversion you will still be able to send missionaries with the upfront fee. culture conversion you will still be able to force but you will gain aggressive expansion as it’s genocidal if you don’t just allow it to happen naturally. 2) Next would possibly be a population system but this may come further down the line. I know a few mods that have this so maybe i’ll try to borrow ideas from them. I’m not sure how to go about this I have my own ideas but I’ll see as progress is made. 3) A scorched Earth change that hopefully works with said population system. It might just be based on the base game features as too not make the changes intermingle with each other causing my life as a below mediocre programmer to become too difficult though. 4) A claims change. Still allow spy networks to create claims but at an increased cost. This may include reducing the cost of some other spy network features to make it not too much weaker. This is somewhere I could go for some input on. What would make sense for how to get claims more logically? Hopefully I get some input. 5) A coring change. Coring time will be greatly increased and work on a mean time to happen system. Cores will maybe cost admin points per month to be done at increased / forced speed like integration of a vassal. Not sure if that is the best method and I could use input on this too! 6)

[@stivelars8985]

excellent video

[@matthewbarabas3052]

i have to add that the population mechanic in EU3 doesnt matter nearly as much as you said it would. the difference between a 1000 people province and a 999,999 people with the same base tax and whatnot is negligible.

[@chargindave70]

so ive played imperialism alot, still fire a game every now and then. Im assuming this is similar but more advanced?

[@Gakumerasara]

Imperialism seems to cover the timespan of Victoria II - a similar Paradox grand strategy game. I've never played Imperialiam, but from looking at it, it seems that the focus of the game is much different. In particular, the goal of EU4 and similar games is 'make your nation the best it can possibly be' rather than 'win the game via diplomatic victory'. People often set their own goals for their nations. The gameplay is pseudo-realtime rather than turnbased, and it seems that there's a lot more micromanagement and game systems to interact with in EU4 than in Imperialism. but that's just my impression.

[@chargindave70]

imperialism 2 was released 1998. You can use diplomacy to control old world provinces and indian territories, but nobody does that lol. Its a solid game, but i had read that europa universalis was pretty ,much a sequel

[@Gakumerasara]

chargindave70 that is very possible. I jumped from civilization 5 to pdox games and never looked back, so i am not too sure about the original Europa Universalis or what it's most similar to

[@kylef8416]

6:36 what there was no mission tree back in the day????

[@picklejarmonsterfanboy9367]

There was no dev boosting back in the day

[@Gakumerasara]

Instead of a tree, you used to be presented with 3 random generic missions, of which you picked one, and kept it until you either completed it or cancelled it and chose another one. Completing missions had very small temporary impacts. Cancellations had a cooldown of some number of years (5 I think?). For example, if you had "wait until you recover manpower to 90%", you'd likely take it and insta-cancel it, because it's just a waste of time unless you're playing as a pacifist. One of the better missions was the "accumulate wealth" mission, because as a reward for saving up money, it gave you more money - and so repeatedly squandering your treasury would make the mission appear more frequently, and make you more money in the long run. For most other missions, the rewards were negligible. The mission tree is a vastly superior system.

[@captainlag3537]

I'd play EU3 if it wasn't for the excruciatingly inaccurate part of the map I'll probably exclusively play 22:30

[@denizyuksel5093]

You can download the mod called ''Steppe Wolf'', which is even more accurate than EU4, but the first milennia is very buggy.

[@captainlag3537]

Altar Göktunca thanks, im gonna take a look at that

[@SigurdKristvik]

I hated the westernisation in old eu4. I'm glad we have the newer system, and If I want to toture myself I would buy EU3.

[@Szgerle]

You havent lived till you westernized as Oyo, vassalized all the electors, became emperor than turned entire central europe animist.

[@denizyuksel5093]

The ''westernize 4 times'' system in EU3 seemed stupid to me. While it should be harder to Westernize as a Native, it shouldn't be that you have to Easternize or something in order to Westernize.

[@sprites75]

well i don't agree most rebellions were a joke in EU3 and in EU4 the manpower loss for dealing with it really hurts. and yes i do wait until wars so my MP can recover. t's almost mandatory as you'll sit like 5 years before getting any

[@Gakumerasara]

The "rebels" were a joke in EU3. I would say the "rebellions" were not, since they were unpredictable, unlike in EU4. In EU4, it's the exact opposite. Rebels, if they spawn, can be a drain; sure. But you can very easily prevent them from ever spawning, and when they do spawn, the urgency to deal with them is comparatively low due to the way rebellions progress. It does take a long time to get manpower. The META though is (once you've got money to do so) to use front line merc infantry, which bypasses the issue of manpower. If you aren't playing according to the META, then ... yeah, you're going to have to do some waiting I suppose.

[@sprites75]

i'm not nearly as experienced in EU4 as i was in EU3. and if i like the monarch points system, estates... they are a micromanagement on its own to learn In EU3 (well maybe not if you had a world-spanning empire ) you could always put ducats into stab or tech , provided you had enough so it hasn't really changed as you'd roll in cash the second half of the game. (and you can diploannex several vassals as once, using pause, if a bit lucky)

[@Gakumerasara]

I like estates in principle; but I don't like the way they were implemented. As a large nation, it just becomes "yet another thing you have to spam click every once in a while to min/max your nation". MEIOU handles it much better. That's true; you were splitting your ducats among various things-to-dump-ducats-into. But you weren't hoarding your ducats and then dumping several techs worth all at once. That's the difference in progression that I was talking about. Yes, you could do that to try to diploannex several nations at once. It's a bit gamey and I'd say not exactly the way the game is supposed to be played, but you could roll the dice and hope for the best. I have less of a problem with that than the people who save scum to guarantee an outcome in EU3.

[@sprites75]

MEIOU had some good ideas , some bad , was insanely punishing and it had a major problem on top : is was so sluggish the game was unplayable. afterin all in games there is save scumming and more or less blatant exploits. ; the choice to use them or not is left to the player.

[@clausbohm9807]

Is this like HOI3 vs HOI4 or ... CIV 5 vs CIV 6?

[@StenKilla]

I completely agree with this

[@fred9551]

You killed us!

[@dancorps1388]

My problem of tech group is they somewhat arbitrary, and also center on Europe for a good portion of the game. For instance, if you look at Europe, the boarder between Easter and Western is a tad bit weird, especially considering that you can westernized getting a Provence that isn't in the western tech group. Also, westernising as Eastern country shouldn't be as long as westernising as an Indian tribe. Finial complaint is that the China tech group should be more powerful at the beginning of the game then what they are. It wasn't until all the infighting do to religion and the introduction of primitive cannons by at the siege of Byzantium that Western started speeding up on tech development.

[@Gakumerasara]

I agree; yet another reason I like MEIOU

[@youtuberobbedmeofmyname]

After all this time and DLC they put in the game 7 years later, I understand the direction they were trying to take now and EU4 is absolutely better than EU3. EU3 is like babby EU4. EU2 is the only game I can say actually has some noticeable differences and mechanics that are better than EU4's.

[@shinydewott]

The Percentage of Rebellions should be random for example,instead of waiting for it to hit 100% for rebellion,it could fire even on 10% Keeping them down still matters,but you cant just survive as a billion ethnicity nation because your king has 6 military power

[@Gakumerasara]

That's a pretty decent idea actually. Like a 10% chance would give you a 10% chance per month - which is basically how Vic2 does it.

[@jeppel1972]

16:08 Why do you think it costs diplo points to culture convert?

[@Gakumerasara]

Because it cost diplo points to culture convert? I don't understand what you are trying to infer with your question.

[@jeppel1972]

To smooth over the diplomatic tension from the genocide.

[@Gakumerasara]

Oddly enough that makes sense.

[@guilhermecantarela3700]

lets be honest,

[@Mrblacksabbathfan]

On my second campaign. Just got eu3 never played eu before, im 21

[@kaaz1010]

Omg the eu3 soundtrack was better

[@srdjankalanj8736]

Errr...regarding religious conversions...did you try playing Portugal and/or Castille? Conversion is a horrifying slow and pain in the ass process. Before some new options opened up (an edict to speed up conversion) I often took the horrifyingly destabilizing decision to return all territories to Morrocco in order to stabilize the country quicker.

[@Gakumerasara]

It's been a while since I played them. I can see where that would be a problem in the early game. My standard idea set includes both humanist AND religious.

[@Poki3]

Just some cents from me: Development - I agree, that some population system as opposed to development would be nicer, though there would need to be a way to get institutions outside of natural spread. Scorched Earth - Although there's still no long term cost, there is short term cost in the form of Mil points, and this can be a long term cost by delaying your tech. The bigger issue here is not scorched earth itself, but the attrition cap that was introduced because the AI was killing itself with dooms stacks, so attrition was caped. Missions - I think an overhaul of missions is one of the most important things that should be changed in EU4, but not being able to pick a mission in EU3 is horrible. Uncertainty - Couldn't disagree more. Having modifiers visible rather then hidden (because EU3 had similar modifiers, just hidden and slightly more fluid) allows you to actually make educated decisions. Culture - I agree that culture shifting is something that should happen naturally, at least to some extent. Using diplo points might still be there to force conversions by genocide, but with a hit to population. Westernisation - Ef the old westernisation system. Conversions - Certainty vs uncertainty again, with a mix of the new rebel system. It's too easy to manipulate the rebel system sometimes, but having several, back to back rebellions in the same place was equally silly.

[@lastresort1plays]

I bet money 1 is how easy and rewarding it is to go to war in eu4

[@Gakumerasara]

You'll have to watch the next video to find out, but for now, I will say that it's in the top 7. :)

[@thissucs1815]

I prefer eu3 mainly cause its cheaper since with all the eu3 dlc its only like 2 bucks on g2a but with all the eu4 dlc it could be upwards of 100 or more wich is just not worth it to me. Also i know you dont need dlc but a lot of options are cut out if you dont have the dlc (some that should be in the base game !)

[@hungrymikepencetd5686]

EU III is so badly programmed, its laughable. But its still so fun lol

[@ricot2000]

This. Everything in Eu4 is predictable and easy to master and I haven't spent more than 200 hours into this gam

[@danielk6673]

Music

[@KingofEuropa07]

Completely disagree with 11. How does a vassal declining integration and costing you a stability force you to adapt to a situation, or using all of your Imperial authority on a reform that doesn't pass? They add absolutely nothing to your gameplay and enjoyment. The only point I do agree on is an ally not joining your war - that alone might be interesting. But as for asking for an alliance, I'd prefer certainty over bullshit.

[@laurentziu7895]

It's funny, but the reason I moved to EU4 was freaking magistrates. That was the most annoying mechanic in a video game ever.

[@blobdragon2678]

I agree with most of the things you mentioned but I compliantly disagree with the idea that western powers are somehow gifted, even historically that doesn't make sense, remember China invented the gunpowder, so although the institution system is not perfect it is by far much better than the "westernization'. especially for the people that like to play outside of Europe.

[@Gakumerasara]

China's a bad example; really the problem is the rest of the world. There's no possible reason that every single tiny tribal nation in the world should have every institution by the end of the game. If you want to see a better (but still not perfect) system of Westernization, try MEIOU & Taxes.

[@youtuberobbedmeofmyname]

You almost never have to do culture conversion or Religious conversion unless you play strictly tall and only go for cores your mission tree gives you claims on.

[@abdullahalmahmud5248]

EU3 uncertainty is better than EU4 certainty. Meanwhile save-scammers : It is free real estate

[@Pan_Z]

I feel uncertainty *can* be a positive, but only if it can be mitigated & controlled. For example, in Crusader Kings 3 you can demand religious conversion of a character. If your stats are high enough or the character likes you enough, you can get the success chance to 100%. Otherwise you risk failure. The point being that uncertainty exists, but there are ways of reducing it. Otherwise it's incredibly infuriating, promoting save scumminh.

[@DutchStudent1982]

I hated how in EU3 they changed 2 things that prevented me from playing as I wanted. -they added -1 stability when declaring war on ANYONE of the same faith, even when I had a bloody cb against such person. (in every game I was constantly at -3 stability and it limited me to 1 war per 2 decades for this reason as +1 stability even with 3 +18 stability advisors and 100% of funding in stability totally wasting research took about 15-21 years WAY too long. This USED not to be the case and I dispised this change! -they severely changed what you could capture in a war. Old EU 3 : *any province occupied by you and held by you without interuption for 20 years, would switch to your side WITH A CORE, even if the war was still ongoing" *if you completely defeated a nation, killed all their provinces and all their armies, you could directly order their complete surrender, annex them no matter their size, only rule for annex was 100% warscore (and that ment defeating all their armies, all their provinces in those days..) But they changed that, so now you fight for 40 years, completely wiping france (absorbing -1 stabity for that war)... yet now you were only able to take 3-4 provinces regardless their size and regardless how large a beating you just gave them, so you were given a PUNY reward for all your hard fighting. And than when you were ready for the second war... 2 decades later.... as you had to wait for the nasty peace deal to get rid off and 1 stability to be gained... you had to do all this hard work AGAIN. Heck the most anoying were those germaning 2 province minors, since they made it so you could annex only 1 province minors, that ment this happend to me a lot : declare war on 2 province minor, take 1 province, wait 20 years... in those 20 years they BLOODY GET A 2d province.. so I reduce them back to 1.... and repeat and repeat.... there never was enough stability to go around to conquer all of europe, let alone the world.. it was insanity.. If I completely beaten down an enemy I want to TAKE ALL that I fought for. if that makes some coalistion declare war on me (for usurping or becoming to powerfull) me being excommunicated by the pope.. if that makes me lose reputation with every royal house in the region (making it absolutely unable to do diplimacy or trade) if I had to exterminate all the population in those regions and repopulate them with my own people.. all that would be fine.... if it would just let me BLOB.. ESPECIALLY if I manage as frisia... with 3 provinces to take down a 20 province france... a near impossible task.. let me CEASE all that french land...

[@Anon-yz1xr]

Let's unpack this. 1) You're not supposed to conquer all of europe. That's not the goal, it never was, and the fact that it's so easy to do in EU4 is proof that it's a poor sequel. The -1 stab hit is the games hint to you that you're supposed to be expanding your empire overseas. 2) You're not supposed to be constantly at war or declaring wars faster than your stab hits can be regenerated. The best way around stab problems though is to not be the aggressor. Get an alliance with someone your enemy hates, and then once a war breaks out, you can swoop in. You take more infamy for the stuff you take in defensive wars, but infamy is easy to manage. Stab on a slider scale was also a perfect way to represent larger empires being harder to manage. There's no cost or penalty to blobbing in eu4, but in eu3 it becomes a bit riskier to overextend. 3) Why do you need to annex every german two province minor? Just vassalize them and move on.

[@jhonhenry9056]

You sound like hank hill. Bobbeh eu3 is better than eu4.

[@Gakumerasara]

Jhon Henry I sell personal unions and personal union accessories

[@timconjo7412]

My God thank you. His voice sounded so familiar but I couldnt put my finger on it

[@shinydewott]

McGuffon Points lmao

[@meinnase]

Well, i certainly disagree on your whole uncertainty argument. For one the one value that fits your description and works that way in eu 4 are sieges. And i absolutely hate them. I dont think i have ever seen a siege complete with a value below 60% and if its to early in the game to even get 60% the sieges last for 8 years minimum. On the other hand i really enjoy play smaller nations and trying to overcome all odds. If i wouldnt have the certainty that that one big nation if spend an hour struggling to get an alliance with, will actually join the war i might aswell not play the game. Or rather i would do what you would probably did, reload the game. You say it makes the game more intersting because you have to adapt and that might be true if for example i have allied ottomans to steamroll an opponent im otherwise stacked evenly against and they dont join the war. But 9 times out of 10 thats not the situation youre in and the random roll becomes "if they join i win, if they dont join i lose everything i worked for in the last 6 hours". What youd have to do would be to only start wars you might be able to win or atleast white peace should your ally not join, which would make a massive number of nations basically unplayable (scotland, novgorod, byzantium, theodore etc. etc. etc.) Eu4's certainty makes Ironman a thing you want to do, this isnt a roguelike where youd just say "oh well that sucks, lets start another run". Having hours upon hours of gameplay ruined by random chance at a key moment isnt fun by any measurement.

[@sniperpig049]

You're just bad. I've won as an inferior nation by superior tactics 😂. I was playing byzantium against the turks, and the timurids were pummeling them so I declared reconquest with venice as an ally. Venice didn't join, but I played on, and I triumphed by holding a line on bithnyia. You're just bad😂

[@thedogeregular7849]

let me guess the ai?

[@KitteridgeStudios]

Juuuuuuuurrroooooooopaaaaaaaa Juuuunnnniiiivooooorrrrrsaaaaaaalizzzzzzzzz!

[@axelander9397]

Your number one on the list will be the system of getting claims!

[@Gakumerasara]

You'll have to watch the next video to find out, but for now, I will say that it's in the top 7. :)

[@axelander9397]

Maybe the monarch point system? Could that be it? Please, not the exact same answer! :D

[@giangolimlim4116]

You sound like hank hill

[@gentlesirpancakebottoms6692]

EU3 and 4 are both great games and I enjoy them both but I agree with you when it comes to the diplomacy AI in EU3. It feels more like dealing with an intelligence and the uncertainty of it makes the political landscape more fun and varied.

[@thatcrazydrunk7436]

BLOBING For the win

[@mackycabangon8945]

I think MEIOUs dev system is the best,vs pop and dev I think that reducing war exhaustion is OK

[@danieljames6138]

Basically the difference is tactical player choice and strategic planning in eu4 to random pot luck in eu3. Tough choice

[@MonstraG55]

So, you don't like how you can PLAN your actions in STRATEGY GAME and instead rely on randomization of diplomatic answers and length of the actions. Yea, strategy.

[@Gakumerasara]

MonstraG I mean, you can play Risk without dice rolls if you really want to, go full deterministic and whatnot, but it doesn't seem like a good or fun idea to me.

[@sniperpig049]

Mcguffin points 😂

[@sjnm4944]

I've only ever played EU3 but have been thinking of getting EU4 for a while, but watching this video has made me seriously reconsider.

[@Gakumerasara]

SJ NM it's certainly worth getting on sale, and depending on mods, but with the tons of dlc it might be a bit cost prohibitive to get the full experience. But it also depends on what you're looking for in a game.

[@mackycabangon8945]

You like PAIN?!?!? You hate beginners.

[@Gakumerasara]

some might call me a masochist

[@mackycabangon8945]

Gakumerasara I am still a beginner

[@shuriken188]

Complexity gives you space to become better without breaking the game (Luxembourg world conquer in HOI4, Ulm world conquer in EUIV) Sure it's hard to figure out, but the fun part is learning from your mistakes and improving

[@Puff_Freckleburger]

I have played for almost 1000 hours and I still suck at EU4. I still love the game but, I don't think I could take it if the game had a far greater level of uncertainty in it

[@Puff_Freckleburger]

If they were to use the uncertainty mechanic, it would be best if it was an optional setting

[@Bu11yMagu1re]

Yeah I just stick with EU3 MEIOU.

[@konstantingr5928]

lets be honest all their titles have become easier and mainstream , ( same is for Hears of iron ) the IU has all been improved but gameplay depth has just become less and less

[@novakaizr]

Is in short you think EU3 is better because everything takes longer, is harder to do, and requires daily sacrifices to RNGesus. Gotta say, hard disagree

[@user-wh9um7bl4w]

For me, the suitable title is "Top 14 Things Why EU3 is Way More Difficult Than EU4"

[@sreckocuvalo8110]

Good video, but. DEVELOPMENT. IS. NOT. F*$&%#. POPULATION. Its how well DEVELOPED is a certain province. A province with a 250k population which is well educated, taxed and supported with good bureaucracy and state infrastructure is far more useful than province with 2 million peasants who don't even know under what monarch they live. This game is made for a period where having a massive population that does not directly support state is no more than dead weight, it is time when one Da Vinci can do more for the state than literal hundreds of thousands of serfs. Remember, in CK you play as a noble family, in Victoria you play as a country, and in EU you play as Royal Court of some country, you are not a nation.

[@dekotakilcrease9525]

All of the problems you have menyioned arr fixed by the Meiou and Taxes mod, save for the certainty of diplomatic intrractions, whoch I personally like anyway, especially given the difficulty of the mod

[@Gakumerasara]

Dekota Kilcrease and... That's why it's the mod I play

[@Aurinkohirvi]

Westernize? Soooo... what if the most prevalent culture(s) is in the east? Do you easternize? Very strange concept... why can't it be called cultural influence? McGuffin points? What the heck is that?

[@rustyzipper19]

Westernization makes me reee. Everything else, especially with D&T, is great.