All of the Paradox Games bring their own pluses and minuses to the table. Which one do you think offers up the greatest ratio of interesting strategic decisions per minute/hour/whatever time unit?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The one you know the least because if you know the game you know what is going to happen which remove the strategy element.
define strategic
no, seriously, I think people use "strategy" way too much, when in fact all they talk is tactics
no, seriously, I think people use "strategy" way too much, when in fact all they talk is tactics
If we're talking strictly military strategy then I'd say HOI wins hands down. Otherwise I think it's a toss-up between Victoria and EU.
EU4 definitely offers the most possibilities for really long-term strategic decision making of all Paradox games. The amount of time (in game ticks), modifiers, mechanics and countries offers practically endless possibilities, even with non-western nations.
I intentionally left it open ended for discussion purposes. Personally, the way I would judge is similar to how I judge board games. How many interesting choices (and what quality of interesting choices) do I make per hour? I suppose that would combine the strategic with the tactical.
I'm sure there's a better definition but I'd define an Interesting choice as one that I care about due to tactical/strategic implications. Using EU4 as an example, carpet sieging in a war that's a foregone conclusion is a low ratio of interesting choices. Choosing an idea group, especially early, provides a high ratio of interesting choices.
I'm sure there's a better definition but I'd define an Interesting choice as one that I care about due to tactical/strategic implications. Using EU4 as an example, carpet sieging in a war that's a foregone conclusion is a low ratio of interesting choices. Choosing an idea group, especially early, provides a high ratio of interesting choices.
first would be CK2. unless you are an emperor and have an unstoppable 30,000 strong army, you're going to be planning both your next conquest, who to try to make your heir, who to kill off, etc. CK2 has multiple layers of strategy, none of which have to work nice with each other.
HOI on the other hand, you're ultimately planning for WWII. but after that, the level of actual long term strategy decreases significantly. it's more about tactics and short term strats.
HOI on the other hand, you're ultimately planning for WWII. but after that, the level of actual long term strategy decreases significantly. it's more about tactics and short term strats.
Deepest strategy chain is probably in Victoria 2, when you start planning for acquiring resources for your eventual industries. In effect early rush for eventual oil and especially rubber RGOs for eventual rubber/oil using factories. Or even further if your intention is to utilize, not just profit from the goods these produce.
Basically you do something for half of the game's timeline for a thing that you can start building only then. HoI3 production & research are also long term strategy. You could be doing only those for 1936-1941 with some countries like the USA. That's why I like to think an alternative title to the game: prepare for war 3.
Basically you do something for half of the game's timeline for a thing that you can start building only then. HoI3 production & research are also long term strategy. You could be doing only those for 1936-1941 with some countries like the USA. That's why I like to think an alternative title to the game: prepare for war 3.
Last edited:
Vicky 2. It's a relatively short campaign, compared to EU4. You can plan ahead...but sometimes things just don't go the way you thought they would.
One example: An election going the wrong way at the wrong time can really throw your strategy out the window and you have to adapt.
Going laissez-fare is a viable strategy, but it can be a crap shoot if you don't have great access to resources.
There's just a lot that can go "wrong" and overcoming these challenges is a large part of the fun.
One example: An election going the wrong way at the wrong time can really throw your strategy out the window and you have to adapt.
Going laissez-fare is a viable strategy, but it can be a crap shoot if you don't have great access to resources.
There's just a lot that can go "wrong" and overcoming these challenges is a large part of the fun.
Vic2 is great, though sadly it hasn't received the same amount of post-release support as CK2 or EU4. It has an issue with event spam (particularly bankruptcy and election events), but that's solvable through modding.
The big thing I miss in Vic2 are characters, though. Considering the great personalities of the period, something like the minister cabinet of HoI 1-3 would have been perfect.
Election event spam was addressed in last year's Christmas patch I believe.
Like suddenly realising your producing 10 times the needed world timber supply as Russia. Crashing the Furniture market didn't help with the problem.
CkII, at least for me. Managing dynasties is harder than managing industry, because consumer goods dont become sentient and plot your downfall.
Unless you are playing Stellaris
I'd say ck2 myself but my experience is pretty limited.
Per hour? From big four, HoI4 definitely. But that's because CK2 and EU4 have quite screwed pacing.
In my opinion, there's a huge difference between "long term planning" and "dealing with the random events as they occur". Some titles are more random than others, and in EU3, for instance, any plans I make are subject to constant change as the AI shuffles its alliances and guarantees for no rational reason. Vicky2 is a bit less random, but it's still evident when Spain allies with Russia, then breaks the alliance a year later to ally with the UK, which soon breaks its alliance with Spain to ally with Russia, who it just defeated a year ago in a war. You can only plan so far, because the RNG secretly rules the world, and decides what you can or can't do. All you can do is be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities when they occur.
HOI3, on the opposite end, has very limited randomization. Most of the events WILL happen, and the AI will activate them on or near their historical dates. The thinking is DEFINITELY strategic, planning how to maneuver around the obstacles which Paradox has designed into the game to push it toward a "historical" outcome. You can play the lead-up to war in a dozen different ways for almost any country, but the background situation itself will not vary much from one game to the next until war breaks out, unless you go out of your way to affect it.
Personally, I prefer a game where the events are "mostly" determined by the (mostly historical) driving ideologies, cultures, needs, and objectives of the individual countries, with a bit of randomness on the edges to affect the "tipping point, and will therefore occur if/when the AI feels that conditions are favorable to press them, within the constraints of the game. Since the exact point is slightly randomized, you can't predict EXACTLY what will trigger it, or when. The events are sill present, but whether they trigger or not, and if so, when, depends on slightly variable conditions and random events that make minor short term changes with possible long-term consequences. Picture Japan having a naval "minister" suffer a random scandal shortly before trying to push through plans for Pearl Harbor....and his plan is narrowly refused. The goals haven't changed, but the timing and methods might.
That means, countries like Germany will look for ways to open up access to scarce resources, and look to incorporate other Germans and former "German" land, no matter WHO is at the helm, but the methods and constraints will depend on the leadership at the moment. Change the leaders (coup, election, random heart attack, whatever) and the methods may change, but the underlying cultural ambitions and goals are still there. In far too many cases, the driving forces behind the key actors is missing in games, so the random behavior of the countries is often neither credible nor desirable. HOI3 in its initial (massively buggy) release ATTEMPTED to represent some of those factors, with realistic Relations, Cores that represented ideological goals, historical claims, and other real motivating factors, and some attempt at allowing the game to flow "naturally" from there. Sadly, the lack of restraining factors meant that nations spammed alliance offers (and accepted them from almost anyone), declared wars for momentary silly reasons, and otherwise behaved in unrealistic ways to the point where it wasn't playable. Often, WWII didn't happen at all unless you started it yourself....even as the Allies. The "mostly on rails" game that it was patched into was a pale shadow of what it promised to be. HOI4, on the other hand, took away all of the driving motives behind the events, and then tried to make it "flow naturally" from a set of humorously unrealistic "National Focus Trees", where the AI simply follows them no matter how stupid they are under the circumstances: I have 50 divisions scattered around several different continents, the other country has 200 concentrated on my border.....DECLARE WAR!....because the NF Tree said so. Oh, looks like that increased World Tension, so now I can also declare that other war I couldn't do earlier.
HOI3, on the opposite end, has very limited randomization. Most of the events WILL happen, and the AI will activate them on or near their historical dates. The thinking is DEFINITELY strategic, planning how to maneuver around the obstacles which Paradox has designed into the game to push it toward a "historical" outcome. You can play the lead-up to war in a dozen different ways for almost any country, but the background situation itself will not vary much from one game to the next until war breaks out, unless you go out of your way to affect it.
Personally, I prefer a game where the events are "mostly" determined by the (mostly historical) driving ideologies, cultures, needs, and objectives of the individual countries, with a bit of randomness on the edges to affect the "tipping point, and will therefore occur if/when the AI feels that conditions are favorable to press them, within the constraints of the game. Since the exact point is slightly randomized, you can't predict EXACTLY what will trigger it, or when. The events are sill present, but whether they trigger or not, and if so, when, depends on slightly variable conditions and random events that make minor short term changes with possible long-term consequences. Picture Japan having a naval "minister" suffer a random scandal shortly before trying to push through plans for Pearl Harbor....and his plan is narrowly refused. The goals haven't changed, but the timing and methods might.
That means, countries like Germany will look for ways to open up access to scarce resources, and look to incorporate other Germans and former "German" land, no matter WHO is at the helm, but the methods and constraints will depend on the leadership at the moment. Change the leaders (coup, election, random heart attack, whatever) and the methods may change, but the underlying cultural ambitions and goals are still there. In far too many cases, the driving forces behind the key actors is missing in games, so the random behavior of the countries is often neither credible nor desirable. HOI3 in its initial (massively buggy) release ATTEMPTED to represent some of those factors, with realistic Relations, Cores that represented ideological goals, historical claims, and other real motivating factors, and some attempt at allowing the game to flow "naturally" from there. Sadly, the lack of restraining factors meant that nations spammed alliance offers (and accepted them from almost anyone), declared wars for momentary silly reasons, and otherwise behaved in unrealistic ways to the point where it wasn't playable. Often, WWII didn't happen at all unless you started it yourself....even as the Allies. The "mostly on rails" game that it was patched into was a pale shadow of what it promised to be. HOI4, on the other hand, took away all of the driving motives behind the events, and then tried to make it "flow naturally" from a set of humorously unrealistic "National Focus Trees", where the AI simply follows them no matter how stupid they are under the circumstances: I have 50 divisions scattered around several different continents, the other country has 200 concentrated on my border.....DECLARE WAR!....because the NF Tree said so. Oh, looks like that increased World Tension, so now I can also declare that other war I couldn't do earlier.
Crusader Kings II. Even when you're at peace, there are always decisions to be made. You don't have to make them, but depending on how much you care you can. Who is going to educate your distant family members, why? For what purpose are they being educated? Do you want to make the children of your vassals imbeciles, do you want them to be genius so they can be good council members? Do you want to purposely piss your vassals off to take their land away, or make them happy so you can raise more troops for a war you might do?
You can plot, build, use your councilors, and try to micromanage your entire family/domain.
If you're playing ck2 not a moment passes that couldn't be spent making a decision. There is never a reason to just sit there staring at the screen waiting for something to happen. Just finding marriage partners for various people is an important task, and there are countless things to take into consideration that will change based on your goals and situation.
I think Ck2 is above Eu4 in the amount of strategic thinking possible, but you can get by without doing most of it and still have a stable kingdom. Victoria II is probably on the bottom of the list for moment-to-moment decision making required.
You can plot, build, use your councilors, and try to micromanage your entire family/domain.
If you're playing ck2 not a moment passes that couldn't be spent making a decision. There is never a reason to just sit there staring at the screen waiting for something to happen. Just finding marriage partners for various people is an important task, and there are countless things to take into consideration that will change based on your goals and situation.
I think Ck2 is above Eu4 in the amount of strategic thinking possible, but you can get by without doing most of it and still have a stable kingdom. Victoria II is probably on the bottom of the list for moment-to-moment decision making required.