The Top 5 Things That EU3 Does Better Than EU4

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.
for the complete top 14:
part 1: • The Top 14 Things That...
part 2: • The Top 14 Things That...
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"

[@minhajul2756]

#0: DLC policy

[@seagrape3163]

I really like how ridiculously in-depth eu3 is. The province histories listing everyone famous born there were probably the best example of this.

[@MahsaKaerra]

Random story. My best EU3 game was when I was playing as England and rushed my way to discovering the Americas where I warred the hell out of the natives, and I took lands in North and West Africa. Using levied troops from all of these regions and shipping them to Europe where, by using the stats of non-European soldiers being higher than those of Europe in the game's earlier years, I crushed the French with a vengeance thus winning the hundred years war. I also inherited Norway by Royal marriage somewhere down the line. It was an entertaining blobbing but the development of so many provinces was painfully slow. I fell behind the rest of Europe and even some other non-western nations! I was technologically backwards and even though I was the richest country on earth except for China I couldn't help but feel impoverished. Basically what the Spanish Empire was in real life, just without the inquisition.

[@andreascj73]

Did the same thing with Denmark. Felt initially as a great acheivement, but soon I was bogged down seriously and fell behind, and too much of my resources went into colonizing and converting ... Did the same thing with taking over Africa ... same result. Never had that i EU4.

[@ArtilleryAffictionado1648]

The spanish empire wasn't backwards nor broke. But it did have a hard time because of it's massive territory. The spanish army was undoubtley the best in the world by 1600. It started to fell behind after the bourbons took over in the 18th century. And i assume that was purposefully done because the bourbons were loyal to france

[@BlindRaven]

I would certainly be interested in hearing your equivalent list for what you think EU4 improved upon from EU3.

[@KeoniPhoenix]

Great question, I always thought the rebels were improved in EU4 to make them much more menacing, while in EU3 they were often speed bumps that only temporarily slowed you down. It wasn't uncommon for me to just ignore a rebellion in an area in EU3 if I was going to be invaded during a war in that part of my country as the invading stacks could handle it for me.

[@jakubkuberski448]

The Horde system. Way better in EU4. In EU3 every 10 years you had to fight a war against a horde neighbor, because the mechanic made it automatically declare war on every neighbor

[@KeoniPhoenix]

Jakub Kuberski That horde mechanic was one of the big problems with EU3.

[@dancorps1388]

KeoniPhoenix while some rebels are a big deal in EU4, some are pointless, and some even help you in the long run. Also, once the first wave or two is Kill, that area won't rebel. You can safely change there religion, without ever have to worry about a uprising.

[@vd9866]

EU3's infamous infamy system and the line "That I heard of..." gotta make it on the list, omg a province with 20000 population has 40000 rebels.

[@whophonenewds4805]

I saw a perfect example of the difference between EU3 and EU4 in a game I was doing recently as Milan. I was attacking Tuscany, who were allied with Naples. No biggie, right? I own Northern Italy and have twice his manpower. Tuscany falls and I take them as a vassal, but Naples controls the Curia... Whoops. They excommunicate me. All hell breaks loose, and I end up fighting Austria while my ally France deserts me. Fast forward about seventy years and I've formed Italy, but the tension is real as France + Austria are allied and I'm nearly alone, making me rethink my whole game plan. I can't expand into the HRE, so I had to divert my attention to Africa. I took over one province from Tripoli so I could use it as a launchpad for getting to Cairo + Alexandria. Currently, I'm waiting for some cores and constructing buildings to put into action my master plan - a merc swarm to overrun the French and Austrians. I've completely changed and now my game is positioned at a turning point - if I win, no one will stop me from here on, but if I lose (a real chance), I'm on the back foot and trying to slip out the back door to Asia. I've never been in a situation like this in EU4. I liked the video a lot, and think you're doing good! Keep it up!

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

I've had that kind of thing happen plenty of times in EU 4...

[@Cyb0rgLP]

whophone newd¡s oh I have has much worse in EU 4

[@danhazing3832]

EU3 was my first paradox grand strategy game and honestly, it’s probably my favorite. It’s simple, but still complex. I guess it’s just condensed, whereas EU4 has a bunch of meaningless bells and whistles and doesn’t have the same feel. Recently I started playing Vicky 2 and I’ve been loving it because I see a glimmer of EU3 in it - it feels like a natural successor. I’m not sure how to place it, but it has exactly the same utilitarian feel as EU3. In those two games, everything is there for a purpose and makes sense. EU4 feels like a film studio cashing in on the success of a previous movie by making a sequel that is overly produced and doesn’t have the same spirit as the first one. (I also watched your Vicky 2 tutorial videos, which were a big help. Just found your channel recently, but it’s a good one 👍)

[@ddshocktrooper5604]

Generally I do prefer the certainty that EU4 offers, but the coalition stuff you mentioned is pretty on point. Even a minor fix where just any ally of a coalition member with negative opinion of you can join the coalition would be a great fix. Since after they join, their allies join, etc. You shouldn't be able to control who's in a coalition, only if it starts. And that magic number should not be 50, it should be variable on other things that change over the course of time, like diplomatic reputation. It'd make huge mass conquest wars increasingly bad as you approach your cap, since conquering both moves the AE up and the AE cap down due to overextension if you take the land directly. Also client states are 100% a total joke, it's already ludicrously easy to use existing cores for dead nations as client states. And the major culprit lategame is not admin efficiency, it's the utter insanity that is the 'Imperialism' CB. That thing should have a 125% AE cost on it, not 75%. Using that CB should be the declaration that you're doing a world conquest and even a worldwide coalition would not stop you. Same with the nomad conquests (the one that nomads use on each other should be super cheap though, maybe 50% AE). Holy wars and heresy purge should have next to no AE with same religion people (as it is, basically), while having significantly more than the usual AE you get with conquest CB against nations of that religion.

[@ddshocktrooper5604]

Additionally nationalism should only work on nations that aren't of your culture, but what does it matter when there's an infinitely superior CB right there that renders every other CB entirely useless.

[@willval21]

I'm impressed and I'm glad you introduced eu3 to me which I always wondered about. Your opinions are great and make sense so thank you for the great info and opinions.

[@Gakumerasara]

Thanks for the comment; I'm glad you found it interesting.

[@packersfanforlife7903]

That part with the: "X number of muguffin points and waiting 36 months. 3 years? 3 YEARS? Is this some kind of joke?" Had me in absolute years laughing for some reason 😂

[@Owen-fn8ff]

Thanks for the video series. "Games are a series of interesting decisions“ as Sid Meier said. The more decisions we have to make the more invested and interested we become. By decisions, I’m pretty sure he meant important decisions, not like spending 20 or 30 Magic points to make a boo boo disappear. Decisions like having to decide whether to take one’s core back from a rival the year before claim expires knowing that we’ll go over the BB limit and everyone is likely to pile on us. Still, we might go for it knowing that the outcome is uncertain. These are the decisions that will generate these amazing stories in your mind of your nations fight for survival against the invaders, and enable you to roleplay unique scenarios every time you play. The decisions are all important. I think it’s interesting that you made the point that EU4 resembles more of a mobile game because that’s exactly how I felt. It’s “everyone can become president” type philosophy that is synonymous with pay to win or other casual mobile games. Nothing to do with history which the original 3 games were steeped in. This is the same direction Paradox took with HOI IV and Vicky 3 which I won’t be buying. Interesting, thee design decisions happened pretty soon after Tencent, the biggest Chinese games publisher (mostly mobile games) bought a ten percent stake in the company. Let’s be real about what happened, they built a game for the Chinese inspired mobile market. I’m sure they are happy with their sales figures. I would disagree with one point you made however, IMO if you can find 15 reasons why a game is better than another, then I think you can stop wondering which is the better game. I have introduced three friends to EU3, now once a week we have an amazing time playing multiplayer. I help new players online learn how to play. While I know we will never see a true sequel I feel lucky that we have this, an imperfect, but awesome sandbox. I will playing EUIII for a long time yet.

[@seagrape3163]

Why does eu4 star much later? I think the EU3 start is much more exiting personally.

[@user-tl4fi6oy8d]

Yup, 1399. You got to use Tamerlane.

[@user-tl4fi6oy8d]

Absolutely brilliant set of videos. This is the best analysis and comparison of two strategy games I have ever seen. I actually learned a tonne from you. I had only played EUIII a small bit (boxed copy) many years ago. I remember attacking Ming China as the Timurids and having an impossible time of it--infuriatingly so. I must have given up. Years later I found myself in another great game CK2 and on Steam in general. So naturally I bought into EUIV and it looked great. I played a lot more of it than I ever have EUIII and so started to believe that it "superseded" its predecessor. How wrong you have proven me! You could easily release these 3 videos into one and title it: Why EUIII is a Better Grand Strategy Game than EUIV. I think your views would go to the moon. What you have demonstrated--I think mainly in the uncertainty versus certainty point--is that EUIII is a better simulator of trying to conquer the world than EUIV is. It is impossible to conquer the world as a nation, especially with the bureaucratic/managerial/logistical resources of the Middle Ages/Renaissance/Early Modern Period. EUIV throws that out the window. You want to conquer Earth as Ryuku? Completely possible! EUIII is a grand strategy game. EUIV is a map-painting game. I haven't played either game in a while, but, because of you making clear the flaws of EUIV that only seemed slightly wrong in my mind, I'm uninstalling EUIV on Steam (I stopped buying the DLCs and haven't updated my game in years since they locked buildings behind Common Sense), and redeeming my key (if I can find it) or buying the whole of EUIII on GOG. Very well done. Subbed.

[@Gakumerasara]

Hi Shane; thank you for the comment! I have to say, this was a sort of unusual series for me, since I typically upload multiplayer sessions rather than longform solo videos. There were a few things that I wanted to mention: EUIII certainly has some major annoyances of its own. I didn't mention them because really the focus was about how EUIV could have been way better by learning from past lessons rather than gutting and replacing the good/best parts and concepts. One EU4 mod in particular, MEIOU & Taxes, addresses /many/ of the issues I discussed in these 3 videos. so much so that it's the only way I will play EU4 nowadays. It still has some issues, but as far as I'm concerned, it's what EU4 should have been all along. I guess my point is, don't completely write off EU4 on the basis of vanilla, because the community has done some amazing work on it. but you're certainly correct that Paradox's DLC policy is terrible. We're currently running a small, open MEIOU & Taxes campaign on Tuesdays. It's the one and only series I'm actively uploading at present. We play Tuesday nights at 8p EST, and the game in streamed to both KZbin and Twitch. If you have any questions about the mod, or even want to join us at some point, feel free to stop by. Thanks again for the comment!

[@user-tl4fi6oy8d]

@@Gakumerasara Thank you for the informative reply. I have looked at the MEIOU and if I ever get back into EUIV again I will download that mod. Apparently I need a Paradox account to get specific versions of that mod, with only the latest one (2.5) being on Steam Workshop, which annoys me because I have always refused to get a Paradox account. Like I said, I am fine with returning to EUIII on GOG once it hits the right price, and of course the "Complete" EUIII is not actually complete... The things this company gets away with! I will check out some of your streams and MEIOU videos though and get a better idea of the EUIV mods. I know how dramatically superior Skyrim with mods is to vanilla, so I'm sure EUIV with the proper mods blows vanilla out of the water. Once again, brilliant videos. They definitely smartened me up!

[@denizyuksel5093]

The thing i hated in EU3 was how FUCKING BAD AI handled Inflation. In the late game, i would have 0 inflation and 40 level tech while they would have 30 inflation and 33 level tech, even in Very Hard mode.

[@Gakumerasara]

Inflation really isn't that bad in EU3, though.

[@denizyuksel5093]

Well, it makes the late game very easy, even if i'm Netherlands who didn't do any serious blobbing.

[@southgonholditdown]

I remember when EU4 was released I literally couldn't play the game because of the new claim system, I was sure it's just the classic paradox's "release the game not even half done and throw expansions at it until it becomes not shit" strategy and that after half a year or so the system will be replaced by something not that moronic, but it never was. Now I guess I'm used to it but it doesn't mean I like it, mind you I haven't played EU3 since EU4 was released so nostalgia mind fog my memories a bit, but I had way more fun in EU3 and that's the problem, the older games were simply more fun even if super flawed like AI not being able to go into debt in CK1, I don't have to see every little interaction between everything to know that it's all fair like the numbers in relations tell me, it's not how human interaction works so why should we make AI be like that, shouldn't they imitate humans and do irrational shit from time to time? EU3 used to be a game of opportunity, you hardly got any cbs and had to wage your every decision, no outcome was 100% certain and no cbing that nation stronger than you that is currently invaded might result in everything really. Every decision just mattered more, in EU4 losing wars doesn't even matter that much it just slows your inevitable blobing, that occurs every single game without fail because it has to, the game mechanics force you to do it, the whole game is just a race to when it becomes boring beating up nations that no longer stand a chance, and the more you play and better you become the faster it occurs, wish I could play anything else than small weak states just to have some fun and then drop the campaign anyway when I am too powerful.

[@mp5856a]

Really liked the MTTH mechanic - players with historical knowledge could see things about to happen and plan for it, but it wasn’t a light switch moment that everyone knew was coming. Also, really liked how the coring and conversions encouraged you to invest in a specific region for a long time, and really plan out your expansions (ok same culture, different religion, but this one touches a Western nation so I can benefit..etc).

[@anonviewerciv]

Trivializing conquest with EUIV. 3:23 More CB opportunities. 7:30 Quick and easy coring. 10:15 Client states. 11:55 Administrative Efficiency. 16:26 Aggressive Expansion.

[@KeoniPhoenix]

EU4 is intended by PDS to be a different game than EU3 and its becoming glaringly obvious its suffering because of your Fourteen Points raised. Whether or not PDS considers them is another story, but there has been a strong focus on EU4 having all sorts of new features. A great point raised with EU3 is that it has a steep learning curve, its probably one of the steepest games I've had to learn, but that is what makes EU3 challenges so fun, is that you learn through trial by fire. In EU4 learning the game is easy and often assisted by deliberate assistance to the player through National Ideas or other mechanics, but with EU3, there's none of this. What future sequel game PDS makes after EU4 will probably have a mix of EU3 and EU4 to balance out the game as EU4 is just too easy in many aspects and once its easy to manipulate, the achievements become easy to get as well.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

People say EU4 is easy, but most of the people who say that are probably already among the top 5-10% of players. Outside of the achievements that are just cumulative, and some of the simpler ones, these things are actually tougher than you make it seem to be. Also the point you make about EU3 being "trial by fire" has more to do with shoddy UI/UX than any inherently more difficult to learn mechanics.

[@user-tl4fi6oy8d]

Just look at Imperator: Rome and you can see the even more brainless path they are taking. They days of great grand strategy by Paradox ended with CK2.

[@JoeyJoJoJoestarJuniorShabadoo]

After playing both I think I prefer EU3 a lot more. EU4 has gotten so bloated with features it feels like a mobile clicker game managing currencies to paint the map rather than anything with depth.

[@T2266]

My #1: the flat no elevation map of EU3. The 3D elevation is a terrible idea it looks ugly as hell when overlaying high elevation difference with borders and shit, and the building object on the map would stick into the slope like an aftermath of a mudslide, it's just ugly.

[@Jrookus]

I mainly like eu4 because of the ability to craft your own little story, and to prevent blobbing I usually A just don’t blob and focus on optimizing other things while watching other nations rise, or if the AI is blobbing I just give it a whole host of debuffs to make it a lot harder for them. With coring I’m fine with it, makes your conquests a lot easier, albeit there are some things that don’t make sense. For example, accepting cultures. Should give a negative debuff over time rather than an instant negation if debuffs. Two, it should take longer to state a core, but territorial cores should be quick and easy. It’s a simple thing to integrate a territory and administer it, but being an integral core of the nation? Not so much. I think you shouldn’t be able to core something until it’s separatism ticks down. It makes sense by that point. Development should be by money as well, and you should be able to burn places into the ground. Settlers should require population, or if there are nearby provinces that can be settled, people should naturally travel towards them, which can increase development overtime. While these are glaring issues that make the game overall not nearly as strategic, I still think it’s incredibly fun for one reason, custom nations. I have never once felt the want to play an actual nation. Every single game I’ve played custom nations and you know what? They’re so fun. Crafting your own story, building a nation with no history into a historical giant, it’s just an incredible feeling. I will never forget my Islamic Sicily run, colonizing the americas and just painting the map with Ibadi. It felt great.

[@dfcrcesar]

Watched all the points, I have my hassles with the infamy system, but I agree that EU4 lacks a lot the depth of worrying about what shit is going to happen to your nation if you re playing a single player or a very casual multiplayer. The new GP system allow GPs to intervene against other big GPs so this can be used to prevent bloobing a bit, but AIs never intervene, so I don t think it s a solution for ppl like us that don t find blobbing entertaining. Anyway I don t think paradox will move away from the current system to try something new and better at this point. I agree with you about everything you talked about the goofy monarch points system, population was way better than development, and though I really liked the institutions idea ( for countries like China and Japan make some sense ), the fact that they made possible that developing your province will bring institutions to it even if it s in the center of Africa is pretty goofy.

[@JoeyJoJoJoestarJuniorShabadoo]

So what do you think is the best EU 4 mod that addresses the most of your complaints?

[@Gakumerasara]

Professor Monkeyface Ph.D. MEIOU & Taxes

[@multimeter2859]

Skip to 1:45 to get past his long winded ass intro.

[@Gakumerasara]

I was going to copy that into an annotation, but annotations aren't a thing any more. RIP. I'm curious, did this get linked somewhere? seems like there's a lot of people watching and commenting on it all of a sudden.

[@valrossenOliver]

Recommended, after watching some VC2 tutorials from you at least that's for me. But I have to ask you.. do you believe Meiou and Taxes solves at least some of the problems? I'd say technology feels a bit stiff still, but they made population and your actions to a certain degree hampering the warmongering state you play as in EU4-Vanilla.

[@Gakumerasara]

Thanks for letting me know. Yes; it's not perfect by any means, but I prefer (and pretty much only play) MEIOU at this point.

[@AlmaBrava]

Now i miss the old coring and the infame coallitions, shame on you 😂 Eu4 feel more arcadish but at the same time it feels they could easily fix those issues with minor fixes to the present system. Right now i feel that when you learn the game, e4 becames a walk in the park while in eu3 even when i was the biggest boy in town, i knew everyone could come together to bring me down, the risk was there 😁

[@Svampen87]

wholeheartedly agree. never really got into EU4 because of a nr of these reasons you stated.. not that the game is worse than eu3 it just didn't scratch the same itch for some reason.

[@hi.ji.9988]

Good analysis.

[@Gakumerasara]

thanks

[@neubtuber]

most i can agree with. But lategame has almost always been trash in eu4

[@AikanaroSauron]

While I agree to most of your points from the previous video, I disagree with most of your points from this one. You take big issue with blobbing in EU4, yet the most blobbing I was ever able to achieve was in EU3 and I did it while still learning to play. If you didn't get lucky with missions in EU3 (which happened all the time) then you were stuck with having maybe one random CB for one province you never wanted. EU4 handles it much better for the player's comfort and much more realistic, if a bit wacky on the literary formulation of why are we attacking whoever our king feels like to attack. Increased administrative efficiency is perfectly sensible for the late game and reflects the real history where empires began to blob and were able to administrate their newly acquired colonies and provinces more efficient as time went by. Finally, aggressive expansion is a much more in-depth mechanic than infamy was. But your problem with it seems to be its certainty. Well, it's surely an opinion and you are entitled to it, but I fail to see what's so good about the uncertainty in this specific regard. AE can be uncertain too, a coalition might form and might not, it might attack or might not, but you are always in control of whether you're taking the risk or no. In EU3 you are dependant on whether the game randomly decides that your ruler already lived long enough and it's time to pass the country to his diplomatically impaired heir.

[@TRISTANTHEGAMER]

my issue with you eu4 is that its overly easy after around 100 or so years

[@stare9892]

yeah

[@christopherjohnson1873]

The thing about EU4 blobbing, there was also at least an option to blob late game in EU3 if you got to the point where nobody could touch you, and thus where you had the option of ignoring infamy for the rest of the game.

[@stevenlepire7690]

Divine Wind (or maybe it was Heir to the Throne) added lots of events that triggered off having infamy above cap. These were generally events with negative consequences, like stab hits and rebellions. Spending much time above the infamy cap was really rough on the player between everyone declaring war on you, events constantly tanking your stability, and frequent revolts. Only hordes could really do that degree of fast expansion. For them, each province only costs one infamy, they get events to slightly reduce infamy and significantly reduce war exhaustion, have really high manpower, and cavalry units that are cheap and powerful. However, they end up paying for it once the ruler dies and every non-core province rebels... unless they cheese it, expand absurdly fast, dump every available ducat in reaching Gov 4, and then become the Mughals in 1423 with an empire stretching from Morocco to Malcca just before Timur dies.

[@christopherjohnson1873]

Steven Lepire Yes, I'm aware of that. It was still possible to ignore infamy and deal with those events, although the gameplay got very slow-paced and not very fun (much like a world conquest in EU4). If you go to the end of shenryyr's Luneburg game in EU3 Death and Taxes, he ignores infamy at the end.

[@RocketHarry865]

I think eu4 should have with coring that either you wait for 50 years for it to become a core for free or spend diplomat points for to become a core sooner.

[@Bu11yMagu1re]

Could never get immersed in EU4 like I could 3

[@aliquis2022]

Still hoping for that "ways in which EU4 is better than EU3" video...

[@Gakumerasara]

and here I was hoping everyone had forgotten!

[@user-tl4fi6oy8d]

Umm, it's more colorful. It looks nicer overall. It's bright. The graphics are better. Umm.

[@pimppimpproductions6497]

@@user-tl4fi6oy8d It has more flavor, that’s the big thing EuIV has insanely more flavor than eu3, so many more mechanics, government types and missions for small nations, that’s because of one thing, DLC. The reason why euIV has more flavor is because it was designed to be a crowd pleaser, it makes more money, and if that means that the game is easier, that is the price payed for flavor. They could not make eu3 have that level of flavor because it does not have the fan base to support it, making games ie very expensive

[@UCUCUC27]

why do i want to play eu3 even though its still 10£ plus dlc O_O

[@IrishMappermapsmore]

If Infamy was a thing the HRE wasnt playable 1

[@Stugav]

I do like the certaincy aspect of EU4. To me, it makes it more board-game like. However, even though I am a fan of blobbing, I do agree with #1 and #2.

[@shinydewott]

I think Great Powers should get as much AE as neighboring nations Like if you are the Ottomans and you go conquer middle east,the Great Powers that know you should get as much AE as the nation you went to war with no matter where they are

[@Gakumerasara]

I think the great powers system has some flaws of its own, but conceptually I think that sounds like a decent idea. In practice I think it wouldn't be so simple.

[@shinydewott]

This would help the modern day scenario too,as America and Russia would intervene like in real life

[@shinydewott]

also,subbed

[@ragefacememeaholic5366]

I would just like to point out that I hate the infamy system in vicky2. Giant Coalitions forming just because I was caught justifying on Spain day 1 is kinda dumb. Plus there is no option to take unjustified land without taking half of your infamy cap. I feel AE is a far better system, flawed yes, but it's a step up not a step down as you implied. I never played eu3 but I pretty sure vicky2 and eu3 use the same infamy system. I think ck2 has a good infamy system. Threat is better than both systems, it has the uncertainty of eu3 but the type of coalition forming in eu4 where only people who care that you just took a 10 counts in 5 years will join a coalition.

[@Gakumerasara]

Eu3 and Vic2 use similar systems, but not the same system. Eu3 is comparatively much more generous in the amount of land you can take for the same relative amount of infamy. The thing that makes eu3's system better than the others is that the effect of infamy scales and that the cap itself changes. E.g. in Vic2, practically speaking, having 24.99 had no more effect than having 0.99, which makes no sense, and having an unchanging cap at 25 is just arbitrary. Some Vic2 mods address this, and those tend to be my favorite Vic2 mods as a result.

[@stefanking98]

Gakumerasara I play a lot of Vicky 2, can you point out some of those mods? Restarting because of getting caught is tedious :D

[@Gakumerasara]

My favorite is Pop Demand Mod: Divide By Zero, but some people really dislike it for a variety of reasons. A lot of people seem to enjoy Historical Project Mod, but it's not one I've played a whole lot. Kaisserreich is one that's worth a shot if you enjoy alternate history. Nowadays, I mostly use multiplayer-specific balance mods which don't change the base game very much and aren't that interesting for single player.

[@stefanking98]

Gakumerasara Try Historical Flavour Mod(I presume you can see the Mod forums). Plenty of stuff to explore, and is still regularly updated Also, do you plan on making the "Top X things EU4 does better than EU3" video?

[@Gakumerasara]

I'll take a look at it this evening. At this point, probably not. I don't think it would be as interesting of a video, and I don't really feel like placating the people who just show up to say "well I disagree with you about 1 point so your entire series is wrong. btw EU4 is better than EU3." especially when I personally think EU4 is a better game over all and made a point of saying, I don't know how many times, that this isn't a "why EU3 is better than EU4 series." Basically, I've got other things to edit that are higher priorities, and my time/energy/motivation is very limited lately.

[@Gilla491]

here's one like. Woo half way there

[@zackamor8043]

Honestly, there is always at some point that the game is what it is. EU3 is not same as eu4. There will always be differences. Everything changes. Maybe it is intended so that the game actually is different so that there is an actual meaning to make new europa universalis. Why would you otherwise make a new EU? Only for new mechanics and new graphics may be the only real reasons. The game needs to remain "fresh" to keep up with new other upcoming rival game developers.

[@lilithshopping7904]

Damn, after watching this, i'd like stop playing EU4

[@thefutureisnowoldman7653]

Did you?

Seriously, you're defending EU3 infamy system? AE has issues for sure, but EU3 infamy was just godawful. It simply forced meaningless waiting - nobody would do anything to you if you were under cap (unless you got almost to the cap and then your cap changed, but that nearly never happened), but you couldn't do anything, so you'd just wait and wait and wait and then get bored and start a new game instead. There was also separate issue that it randomly mass spawned millions of rebels and other crappy events, which made absolutely no sense. If you always stay under 50 AE, then blobbing is completely safe, but that's very slow rate of blobbing, and countries you take significant land from will very quickly go over 50. Once you start going over 50 AE and juggling truces, things can backfire spectacularly. Check out florryworry's lets plays - he's a really good player, and he's cheesing AE real hard, and it backfires pretty often due to RNG or some minor oversight (or tooltip giving false truce expiration date). Oh and you missed the one best feature of EU3 - alliance leader changes and resulting minor conflicts turning into early WW1. Nothing in EU4 reaches this level of fun.

[@ZanathKariashi]

Eu4 used to do that for almost the first 2 years. The player base hated it and demanded it be changed.

[@lorenzoditommaso4920]

Maybe I'm dumb but I've never blobbed in EU4 insead I've blobbed many times in EU3

[@marlonyo]

i think if you just play normaly that happens my ig bloab playtroughts din't start until i started watching other people play

[@andreiasimov33]

Lorenzo Di Tommaso Could you explain to me what is blob?

[@marlonyo]

blobing: growing your nation to be very large. being in the way to world conquest.

[@sdauz]

I don't think I agree with most of your points, made it easier to play and more straightforward

[@KeoniPhoenix]

EU4 is for the more casual gamer than EU3, as EU3 is a ton of work balancing needs with wants, while EU4 is streamlined for causal players to allow you to just focus on your wants instead of tending to all your needs. The two games are completely different for veterans of both and a player of EU3 may find that EU4 is way to easy to manipulate than EU3.

[@stevenlepire7690]

Totally agree. I started playing Paradox games with EU2, and EU3 was my favorite. I found EU4 too "gamey", too easily manipulated, and it felt more "arcade" than EU3. While I played a lot of EU4 when it first released, I find that Vic1, CK1, and EU3 are the games that I return to for a strong strategy experience.

[@kingKapuzina]

While i would agree that Eu4 is more "gamey" than the others it is also more strategic. Strategy requires a plan, it is your long term approch and as Gaku said the randomness and the changing of plans is what makes Eu3 more spicy. Neither is it for casual players, it is different. In Eu4 you have to plan everything on your own and if something doesnt gors according to your plan you are screwed. In Eu3 you dont have that option so ypu have to plan to deal with the chance of stuff happening. I think you could compare that to Darkest Dungeon in a way. My guess is that Eu4 seems just casual because we were used to this level of complexity

[@mamaundpapa9721]

100% agree

[@kingof_prussia]

Seriously. "I don't like blobbing, but I just do it for fun!" I agree with blobbing being bad, but you just sound hypocritical.

[@Gakumerasara]

Perhaps I didn't clarify things well enough in the video, but I'm not sure what part you think is hypocritical. Blobbing *can* be fun and rewarding when it's a challenge (e.g. MEIOU & Taxes). Blobbing when it's both safe and easy to do so (e.g. vanilla EU4) is comparatively boring.

[@kingof_prussia]

Agreed. I just thought it sounded a bit hypocritical at the time. by chance, have you started to use keyboard shortcuts with your army? In the situation in South Africa you didnt have to select the province and click x on the army, just hit v instead of the x. makes it a lot faster.

[@Gakumerasara]

I actually didn't know about that shortcut. With a few notable exceptions, I've generally avoided using shortcuts since I'm more worried about incorrect key-presses than about speed. V seems safe and useful, though. I should probably look back over shortcuts to improve my speed in multiplayer, though.

[@kingof_prussia]

It's very helpful to just get the troop movement out of the way and sit back and admire your empire before a new FUCKING REBELLION rises up

[@timpietersen481]

EU4 is crap

[@jagartharn6361]

EU3 is better, I tried 4 got bored with it. And with 3 you dont have to get a bunch of DLC.