10% of player that have the achievement is actually a lot because the majority of player don't play in ironman and you need to be in that mode to unluck achievement
forming qing is quite easy, as you can become manchuria in ab 5 years if you start as jianzhou (since it's only like 4-5 wars you need to win, even less if the tribes with the correct cultures ally eachother). pretty fun to play yea
I started playing EU4 a few years ago after I got tired of CK3 but loved the formula. Now I have over 2k hours on steam in eu4 and I can tell you that you're not wrong lol. Everything you mentioned were complaints that I had when I switched from ck3 to eu4. I think the thing that kept me playing it was the depth of the whole thing. CK3 was extremely accessible but there's no depth to it - once you figure out the strats you rinse and repeat until the fun of it is lost. Eu4 on the other hand is extremely inaccessible for new players but the ceiling is so high that with my years of experience and thousands of hours playing I'm still learning to strats, taking new paths with nations, achievement hunting, learning new mechanics, and trying new nations. Overall I love the video, eu4 is definitely an extremely acquired taste to be sure.
I've been playing Eu4 since 2015 and all of these commenters are wrong the ai max demanding everything, the unregulated blobbing, and the dice rolls are 100% fair criticisms and I agree with everything you said in this video. I will disagree on the natives tho they are fun also paying 5 dollars every once in a while for a campaign really isn't that bad
this is a funny video to me because i have a lot of issues with eu4 but i disagree with basically everything you said. some of your points seem so bizarre and out of nowhere. You are right that it is, truly, one of the games of all time
Yikes. I'm at 8520 hours. Also I almost never play in Europe. Or the natives minus Inca, Aztecs or Maya. Also, trade is pretty simple, it just looks complex. My favourite region to play is actually in India. I think I've formed Qing 4 or 5 times but haven't played the Ming once past 1500 because it feels boring. I more often play smaller nations, or nations that historically failed. The last century of the game does drag however.
It's not only europe. Ming is awesome and very different. You got developement, butare stuck in inefficient government, and struggle to unstuck. But you have insane mana economy because of tributaries, and good acess to americas. Getting full western hemisphere to 1600 and overcap gov capacity in Asia is achivable. You troops quality will suck ever, but you can totaly engage in 250k on 120k midgame Ottos(for some franch colonies in Newfoundland). And reverse colonizing europe, without overheeting AE, is a chalenge too. Inca/Aztec/Maya/NA natives - you realy should try every of them at least one. It i a hard mode after europeans will come, but it is very different. Timmy/Afgan to Muhgals is a pure powerfanasy. Probably the most expansionist playthru. Europe is final boss, but you can afford it with all Asia. Ephiopia was a fun underdog. Japan is fun on eary stages, but generic in late game. You can kill natives... well, that a part of the history. You can get natives and kill english, if you want.
No 1) Yeah, paradox dlc model sucks, noone likes it. The subscription model is nice at least. 2) "Everyone plays in europe" isn't really a criticism of the game, it's not like outside of Europe is unfun to play, it's super fun! 3) natives are boring, sure, aztecs are fun for a bit but the reality is you are always going to need to wait for Europeans. It's kinda just the unfortunate reality of their position in history. 4) Genociding natives is worse than leaving them, it is not encouraged it is discouraged. Also, it's a (mostly) historical game, bad things happened in history and not representing them would be whitewashing the awful realities that existed due to colonialism. 5) Trade is and isn't complicated depending on how hard you want to go. But the game can be extremely complex in general, I dont think that's nessecarily bad, you don't need to minmax to have fun. 6) I forgot about how you summarized war. It's completely wrong. Dice rolls can screw you over sometimes (usually only in very early game), but generals, army quality/quantity, army composition, terrain, fort placement, etc are all far more important than dice rolls for winning war. Honestly, sieges are wayyy more frustrating to get bad rolls on. 7) AI is mega annoying to peace out, but also players usually only go for 100% or WP so I can't really blame the ai. 8) Really just seems like you're a new player dealing with new player frustrations, the game isn't easy to learn and alot of times when you're new shit like dice rolls feel really unfair. The game is probably over complicated, but that's the nature of the business model unfortunately, new features need to be added or ppl won't buy the dlc. (Again, the dlc model sucks, you're right there.) 9) the game is only as repetitive as you make it. It's a sandbox at the end of the day, if you play the same way every game it'll feel repetitive, you need to challenge yourself to try new ways of playing to break that up. You can play France twice in two completely different ways and have two completely different games. 10) this list is out of order, I'm just going off memory. 11) I could just be coping cuz I have too many hours 12) If you wanna learn add me on steam, game is way more fun and way less repetitive in multi-player anyways. Wanted to give you constructive criticism, so i hope you liked the long read.
What do you mean it sucks? That DLC model is what has allowed this game to last as long as it did. Many people have bought the DLC over the years, which means we financed Paradox so they were allowed to improve the game to where it is today. I have over 3k hours over 10 years in the game. I have bought all the dlc that I thought were a good addition to the game. Even if I had bought them at full price, that'd be about 30 hours per dollar spent. That's a lot more than most other games I've ever played. And there's a bloody subscription that's cheap AF if you are a new player.
@nachodrd I think the sub thing is good. The dlc model sucks because they are nessecary for the game to function as intended, so prior to the dlc subscription new players would have to pay ~200 dollars to play the game regularly, which is frustrating. Nessecary features like increasing development should not be locked behind dlc.
@@purplishpatty you're obviously a newer player. The DLC system is there in order to allow the game to be developed over 10 years. Before the subscription existed, you could get all the important DLC for very little, and the game was still good. What most people did was to get them little by little, depending on where you were playing.
@nachodrd Lmao, no, you could not get all the nessecary dlc for very little that is a deranged thing yo say. I probably started playing around mandate of heaven and it was still upwards of 100 dollars. I want you to go play spain without: RoM, AoW, cossacks, el dorado, CoP, common sense, and MoH. Tell me how functional the game is. I understand the purpose of the dlc system? I'm saying locking nessecary game features behind a paywall is frustrating to deal with. I tried playing without DLC once and realized automatic boat transit was locked behind a dlc. I appreciate the sub model, I think it fixes many of the issues with the dlc model as it was. Oh and btw, paradox agrees with me, they've started slowly adding those features into base game ever since dharma I believe. Base game can now develop provinces and transfer occupations (Why was transferring occupations dlc for so long??). And developing provinces is NESSECARY to play anywhere besides Europe so you can dev institutions.
I HATE the ottomans color. I can't play with puke green. Going for my 1056th Poopderburgian Campaign. WE RUSHING PRUSSIA BOYS! AGAIN! AND AGAIN! and again. and again. and...
a horrible view riddled with hyperbole. You can pirate the DLCs very easily, trade is 90% filler you dont need to know, theres a lot more to war than just the dice rolls, 'colonisation = bad!' is a moral sensibility - maybe dont play a game about history if you dont like the things that happened in history? Europe is the most played continent because it historically was the most important continent: theres a reason empires from europe conquered the world. The only fair criticism you made was about the AI, and frankly, if you're still playing SP i just feel sorry for you. MP is way funner than SP, and i'd encourage you to go there
If you have the best general, best army quality and aren't hugely outnumbered dice rolls wont matter, trade is not only simple it's one the best mechanics in the game. You just suck bro
So you play for 700 hours and then call a game shit? Interesting. It's totally not that you suck. The reason why most people don't play to the late game is because it's fairly easy to become a superpower by the early 1600s, meaning no one can square up to you and there's little challenge after that. And you'd know that if you weren't terrible at the game.
The game is flawed but I still enjoy it. Personally, I prefer to roleplay more instead of becoming a superpower. I have done it many times but they get tedious quickly which is why I prefer my playstyle
