Opinions on EU4? (vs EU3)
I got into Paradox games via EU3 and loved it. Poured in many many hours. However, after getting into the other series, it kind of feels like baby's first Paradox game. Not a dig at the game, since Paradox games are all pretty complex, so accessibility is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm just wondering whether EU (4 in particular) still has enough to offer me since I'm craving more than just the EU3 experience. For example, I appreciate HOI2/3 for its more operational/military approach (whereas other Paradox combat is pretty barebones), Vic2 for the global power projection and increasingly convoluted diplomacy of late 19th/20th century, CK2 for its lineage/roleplaying aspect on top of the Paradox grand strategy layer.
If anything, I think it's CK2 that has spoiled me the most. I want to, instead of just playing as France, play as the king of France and have to ensure that my vassals are in order and that my dynasty is secure, while at the same engaging in international diplomacy like I would in a EU game. If you remove that layer, it feels like something is missing. I'm okay with that as long as the game adds another gameplay mechanic/layer that offers additional depth. Does EU4?
What I would find appealing about EU4 would be the exploration element. Colonization of the Americas, dealing with Amerindians, the wars of religion, Napoleonics. Does EU4+xpacs implement the unique elements of its setting/timeline in a compelling way?
I'm not sure if I'm explaining my question correctly. As much as I loved EU3, I find it lacking in (relative) depth compared to other Paradox games. Would EU4 offer a similar experience? Is it just an incremental upgrade from EU3, or does it potentially offer something quite different?
I got into Paradox games via EU3 and loved it. Poured in many many hours. However, after getting into the other series, it kind of feels like baby's first Paradox game. Not a dig at the game, since Paradox games are all pretty complex, so accessibility is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm just wondering whether EU (4 in particular) still has enough to offer me since I'm craving more than just the EU3 experience. For example, I appreciate HOI2/3 for its more operational/military approach (whereas other Paradox combat is pretty barebones), Vic2 for the global power projection and increasingly convoluted diplomacy of late 19th/20th century, CK2 for its lineage/roleplaying aspect on top of the Paradox grand strategy layer.
If anything, I think it's CK2 that has spoiled me the most. I want to, instead of just playing as France, play as the king of France and have to ensure that my vassals are in order and that my dynasty is secure, while at the same engaging in international diplomacy like I would in a EU game. If you remove that layer, it feels like something is missing. I'm okay with that as long as the game adds another gameplay mechanic/layer that offers additional depth. Does EU4?
What I would find appealing about EU4 would be the exploration element. Colonization of the Americas, dealing with Amerindians, the wars of religion, Napoleonics. Does EU4+xpacs implement the unique elements of its setting/timeline in a compelling way?
I'm not sure if I'm explaining my question correctly. As much as I loved EU3, I find it lacking in (relative) depth compared to other Paradox games. Would EU4 offer a similar experience? Is it just an incremental upgrade from EU3, or does it potentially offer something quite different?