You know how people say that, if you had played one Ubisoft game, you have played all of them? It's kind of the same thing with Paradox games. They are glorified Excel spreadsheets with random events and dice throwing mechanics to compensate for the deficiencies in AI and game balance, and, frankly, lack of things to do.

EU4 is the second Paradox game that I have played after CK2. Although, EU4 is objectively better, I enjoyed it less. Partially, because of my gaming fatigue, partially because of the reasons mentioned before.

Eventually, the same thing happened to me as in CK2: I progressed far into the game, to realise that basically it's going to be about watching some numbers grow and waiting for time to pass. It's not as boring as in CK2, because EU4 actually provides you some set pathways in the form of reform progress, ideas, regions, trade nodes and, my favourite part, the mission trees, but still.

It's fun, while you're learning stuff and expanding, but sooner or later it gets dull. So, you have to set up some goals for yourself. You know, like in a sandbox. But I really don't think that a strategy game should be like a sandbox, it should be about strategy, about an intellectual challenge, where you are being rewarded for making the right decisions and punished for making the wrong decisions. It is like that in EU4 to some extent, but it's also largely about luck, especially, if you're starting as a small nation. Many people who have thousands of hours in this game start achievement hunting. Is it because there's lack of things to do and the replay value is small? I don't know, decide for yourself.

Anyhow, here's a list of GOOD and BAD things about EU4:

[+] Historical accuracy to some extent;
[+] Mods;
[+] Various aspects of state governance (stability, army, navy, diplomacy, trade, economy, science, ideas, colonisation, religion, exploration, resources), albeit some of these aspects are very rudimentary;
[+] A good amount of diplomatic actions, albeit the usefulness of them is lessened by the stupidity of AI and randomness of the game;
[+] Mission trees and national ideas;

[-] Random events (because, God forbid, you're doing too well) and random outcomes;
[-] Lack of unified frontlines during the war and inability of the AI to effectively control its army;
[-] The difficulty of the game doesn't really depend on the chosen difficulty level, but on the size and location of the chosen country.

Usually, at the end of my reviews, I give a numerical rating to a game. It represents my satisfaction with the game. I would give 6/10 to EU4, but I gave 8 to CK2, which is more primitive from strategical perspective. Therefore, to account for my gaming fatigue, and to be fair to the scope of its content,

My final verdict for EU4: 8/10.

p.s. I really hope that someone finally nudges "Paradox" a bit in their niche of historical grand strategy games. They have got too comfortable without any considerable competition.

You know how people say that, if you had played one [i]Ubisoft[/i] game, you have played all of them? It's kind of the same thing with [i]Paradox[/i] games. They are glorified [i]Excel[/i] spreadsheets with random events and dice throwing mechanics to compensate for the deficiencies in AI and game balance, and, frankly, lack of things to do. [b]EU4[/b] is the second [i]Paradox[/i] game that I have played after [b]CK2[/b]. Although, [b]EU4[/b] is objectively better, I enjoyed it less. Partially, because of my gaming fatigue, partially because of the reasons mentioned before. Eventually, the same thing happened to me as in [b]CK2[/b]: I progressed far into the game, to realise that basically it's going to be about watching some numbers grow and waiting for time to pass. It's not as boring as in [b]CK2[/b], because [b]EU4[/b] actually provides you some set pathways in the form of reform progress, ideas, regions, trade nodes and, my favourite part, the mission trees, but still. It's fun, while you're learning stuff and expanding, but sooner or later it gets dull. So, you have to set up some goals for yourself. You know, like in a sandbox. But I really don't think that a strategy game should be like a sandbox, it should be about strategy, about an intellectual challenge, where you are being rewarded for making the right decisions and punished for making the wrong decisions. It is like that in [b]EU4[/b] to some extent, but it's also largely about luck, especially, if you're starting as a small nation. Many people who have thousands of hours in this game start achievement hunting. Is it because there's lack of things to do and the replay value is small? I don't know, decide for yourself. Anyhow, here's a list of GOOD and BAD things about [b]EU4[/b]: [+] Historical accuracy to some extent; [+] Mods; [+] Various aspects of state governance (stability, army, navy, diplomacy, trade, economy, science, ideas, colonisation, religion, exploration, resources), albeit some of these aspects are very rudimentary; [+] A good amount of diplomatic actions, albeit the usefulness of them is lessened by the stupidity of AI and randomness of the game; [+] Mission trees and national ideas; [-] Random events (because, God forbid, you're doing too well) and random outcomes; [-] Lack of unified frontlines during the war and inability of the AI to effectively control its army; [-] The difficulty of the game doesn't really depend on the chosen difficulty level, but on the size and location of the chosen country. Usually, at the end of my reviews, I give a numerical rating to a game. It represents my satisfaction with the game. I would give 6/10 to [b]EU4[/b], but I gave 8 to [b]CK2[/b], which is more primitive from strategical perspective. Therefore, to account for my gaming fatigue, and to be fair to the scope of its content, [u]My final verdict for [b]EU4[/b][/u]: [b]8/10[/b]. p.s. I really hope that someone finally nudges "Paradox" a bit in their niche of historical grand strategy games. They have got too comfortable without any considerable competition.