This is the most punishing Paradox Game

[Das Boot]

It might just be because I'm used to playing CK2 and CK3, but I think EU4 is way too punishing. I think 9 out of 10 times when I try to play, my games go like this.
1. Make incremental-to-good progress.
2. A much larger enemy declares war on me when I least expect it and am least prepared for it. My allies desert me, I take a lot of debt, I outnumber enemy armies 3-1, and I still lose miserably.
3. The enemy demands everything, undoing all my progress in the last in-game century (usually several real-life hours), putting my enemy in a stronger position to do it again in five years, putting me in a death spiral.
4. I ragequit, deleting the save file or even giving the game a break for a month.

It seems like, when enemies win war, they're able to get away with a lot more ♥♥♥♥ than the player. I can't take 2-3 counties without the world hating me, but my enemy strips away 10 counties and that's fine?

I'm quite angry, and I guess I just want to vent. This game is sometimes fun, but it's also often frustrating.

Please, this is NOT a place to ridicule or taunt. If you want to then don't even bother responding.

[Azunai]

Eu4 is harder than the crusader kings games. I played ck2 a lot. Also picked up ck3 and played it for a bit.

Both are easy games. You can lose if you're new and make bad decisions, but once you have some experience they are quite fail safe.

Eu4 is less forgiving. You can easily make crucial mistakes that can end a campaign.

If you're losing battles despite 3:1 numbers advantage you may just be too far behind on mil tech. Never fall behind on mil tech.

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Azunai:

Eu4 is harder than the crusader kings games. I played ck2 a lot. Also picked up ck3 and played it for a bit. Both are easy games. You can lose if you're new and make bad decisions, but once you have some experience they are quite fail safe. Eu4 is less forgiving. You can easily make crucial mistakes that can end a campaign.

You're entirely right. I've been playing EU4 on and off for a few years, though some of the expansions are new to me. Do you know how many times I successfully got a country from 1444 until the end of the game? Exactly twice. Once as Ming China, when I was literally too big to fail (and even then came close a few times near the end - Russia is OP) and once as Naples (I got independent, got Sicily, stayed in my lane until the last century, and didn't consolidate Italy in time).

Every other time it either followed the cycle I outlined, crashed and burned right away, or I ended up leaving because not much was going on.

Originally posted by Azunai:

If you're losing battles despite 3:1 numbers advantage you may just be too far behind on mil tech. Never fall behind on mil tech.

That's probably what it was, truth be told. I fell a bit behind on military tech and on getting an idea, because my early wars in Italy took up a lot of administration points.

[Azunai]

I think my biggest hurdles to becoming (somewhat) competent at the game were the handling of monarch points, understanding the combat system and learning the finer points of the diplomacy system.

Monarch points can be a big problem if you rolled a bad leader with low mp stats. A good ruler with high mp makes it almost too easy.

You have a base income of 3 and you can get points from estates (+1 for each category), power projection > 50 (+1 point each) and from advisors. You can also disinherit bad heirs and hopefully roll a better replacement.

As for military - there are guides that explain it better than i could. It's not even all that complicated. You just have to learn the system and then you'll win most of your wars. The AI isn't very good at it and you can "outplay" them to some extent even if your military power is inferior.

As for diplo - dragging allies into various wars to manipulate the relations and create opportunities is really the heart of the game. Until you're too big to fail and can just steamroll without subtlety. That's the part of the game that makes you feel clever when you pull off an elaborate plan to defeat a seemingly overwhelming alliance block. It feels a bit like in ck2 or 3 when you set up some elaborate marriage and murder plot so your grandson finally inherits the neighbor kingdom 20 years later.

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Azunai:

As for military - there are guides that explain it better than i could. It's not even all that complicated. You just have to learn the system and then you'll win most of your wars. The AI isn't very good at it and you can "outplay" them to some extent even if your military power is inferior.

I hope you're right. That would really change how I handle this game. I'll try to look for guides that are up to date.

I have one game going as France, where I was able to use a combination of allies and chokepoints (Gallipoli) to beat the Ottomans in battle and cripple them.

Originally posted by Azunai:

As for diplo - dragging allies into various wars to manipulate the relations and create opportunities is really the heart of the game. Until you're too big to fail and can just steamroll without subtlety. That's the part of the game that makes you feel clever when you pull off an elaborate plan to defeat a seemingly overwhelming alliance block. It feels a bit like in ck2 or 3 when you set up some elaborate marriage and murder plot so your grandson finally inherits the neighbor kingdom 20 years later.

True. I'll admit that, before things went wrong, my most recent game with Austria was really fun. I really enjoyed whittling down the coalition against me with diplomats, until I could attack Venice again because they were left alone.

If my allies didn't all ditch me in the war against France then I might have been able to win. But that's a lesson to remember for next time.

...

Anyway, thanks for being understanding and helpful. I appreciate it.

[Kapika96]

Why delete the save file? You could still have a look at it and see where you went wrong. Especially if you take some screenshots, it's a lot easier to see what the issues are if you could share screenshots of a battle, or your army stats vs the enemy etc.

[Fdsbo]

It’s the most mechanically easy paradox game where you can dominate the world after 1/4th of the campaign. Compare to Vic where if you start as a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ tag, you will stay weak,in eu4 you can go from being a goat herder to an HRE emperor with ease. Also eu4 has less secret mechanics and complex systems compared to other paradox titles. Combat vs ai is very simple and works almost fully based of numbers you can always monitor. I can’t say CK2 was easier personally as late game in that game is more challenging due to vassal management than any mechanic in eu.

[Octopuses]

If your allies are strong enough and at least some are close to you, no one will ever declare war on you.
I'm fairly new at the game and I got achievements for Granada, Ireland, Cilli, and Ragusa already. All start as tiny countries, and no one ever declared war on me because I made sure my alliances were strong enough.

[Preacher]

Don't give up, skeleton! Azunai gave wonderful advice and I can do nothing but second it.

Scrounge around on the forums and pick up little tips and ideas from other posts. Google past posts on Steam, the Paradox forums, Quora, or (if you're desperate) Reddit.

As for gameplay, generally you want to always prioritize getting monarch points and staying ahead in tech (but don't waste MP by buying tech super expensive and early unless you're gonna start a war and need the military tech advantage). Lately, I have been starting my games by giving the estate privileges that give a +1 in the respective monarch point fields. Also don't be afraid to hire advisors, because what else are you gonna do with the money?

As for money, don't be afraid to take loans. I'm in my current Byz run and I've been in debt the entire game with the exception of maybe 1 year lol. But it doesn't matter bc I'm using that money for advisors, armies, and navy and I'm constantly at war (sapping money from the enemy). Fyi don't be afraid to go above force limit if you need the troops.

As for army stuff, basic rule of thumb for army comp is 1 cav per 3 inf (honestly idk why) but cap it a 4 cav (2 for each flank, but this changes depending on the country ur playing, like Poland or a horde). You'll want to see your combat width and have enough infantry to fill it and enough arty to fill the entire backrow.

What I said is pretty basic stuff and probably not helpful, I'm sure more experienced players will be willing to send you some advice!

Good luck! <3

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

It might just be because I'm used to playing CK2 and CK3, but I think EU4 is way too punishing. I think 9 out of 10 times when I try to play, my games go like this.
1. Make incremental-to-good progress.
2. A much larger enemy declares war on me when I least expect it and am least prepared for it. My allies desert me, I take a lot of debt, I outnumber enemy armies 3-1, and I still lose miserably.

You're making very fundamental mistakes.

1) "A much larger enemy" should never declare war on you. Your first job in this game as the leader of any nation is to put together an alliance so strong that the AI will never dare to attack you. I literally can't remember how long it's been since the AI declared war on me. It only does so if it thinks it can win--in other words, if its offensive alliance is stronger than your defensive one. Make sure that never happens.

2) If you "outnumber enemy armies 3-1 and still lose miserably," you haven't learned the combat system. Doom stacks do not work in EU4. Here's a brief summary of how battle results are determined:

--Relative tech levels. Even a difference of one point can have a huge impact. Make sure you are the one in the lead.
--The terrain you fight on. Always attack in plains. Always try to defend in hills, mountains, or forests. Don't cross rivers to attack. Make your enemies cross one to attack you.
--Generals. But not just any general will do. Siege pips are wonderful against forts but do nothing in a battle. Fire pips are useless until infantry develop good fire values and cannons advance a few levels. Etc.
--Combat width and army composition. You want a front row of infantry + cavalry equal to your combat width. For most nations, a small number of cavalry (2 to 6, depending on combat width) is optimal. Your rear row should be exclusively artillery. At low tech, you don't need many, but by the time you reach military tech 16 or so, you want a complete row of artillery. If your enemy's backrow outguns yours, you are going to lose constantly.
--Sending in a second army to reinforce the first in large battles after significant damage has been done to your side. Units beyond your combat width just sit there and take morale damage without doing anything in battle. Don't pile them all in at once.
--Making sure your troops are fully funded in wartime and have time to reach max morale.
--Drilling. The AI loves to drill, and the bonuses it provides are powerful. Once you can afford it, drill your armies in peacetime.
--Advisor and ruler bonuses
--National and military idea groups--but note that you can do VERY well in combat without either of these.

Once you really learn how combat works, you will go entire campaigns without losing a single battle. Read the wiki.

[Radene]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

If my allies didn't all ditch me in the war against France then I might have been able to win. But that's a lesson to remember for next time.

Here's the thing. The AI also knows who will come to your aid and who won't, just like you can check before declaring war, which allies will join your target and which ones will not.

Of course they'll be more likely to attack when they know you'll be fighting alone. So basically, you don't have as many wars where the allies do come to your help because those wars don't happen, your allies being willing to join is often deterrence enough.

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

Why delete the save file? You could still have a look at it and see where you went wrong. Especially if you take some screenshots, it's a lot easier to see what the issues are if you could share screenshots of a battle, or your army stats vs the enemy etc.

That's actually a good point. Though I am learning a lot by getting advice from here and seeing reflecting on how it relates to my wars in that save.

Originally posted by Fdsbo:

It’s the most mechanically easy paradox game where you can dominate the world after 1/4th of the campaign. Compare to Vic where if you start as a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ tag, you will stay weak,in eu4 you can go from being a goat herder to an HRE emperor with ease. Also eu4 has less secret mechanics and complex systems compared to other paradox titles. Combat vs ai is very simple and works almost fully based of numbers you can always monitor. I can’t say CK2 was easier personally as late game in that game is more challenging due to vassal management than any mechanic in eu.

I haven't played any of the Victoria games. The only paradox games I've played are CK2, CK3, Stellaris, and EU4, and my personal experience is that that's the order of how punishing they are.

Originally posted by Octopuses:

If your allies are strong enough and at least some are close to you, no one will ever declare war on you. I'm fairly new at the game and I got achievements for Granada, Ireland, Cilli, and Ragusa already. All start as tiny countries, and no one ever declared war on me because I made sure my alliances were strong enough.

To be fair to my allies, before my war with France they were able to carry me a good ways. I enjoyed about 80 years of peace despite a large coalition against me, because I had good allies.

Originally posted by Preacher:

Don't give up, skeleton! Azunai gave wonderful advice and I can do nothing but second it.

Good luck! <3

Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it. In fact, I appreciate all the advice and encouragement here.

[bri]

Originally posted by Fdsbo:

I can’t say CK2 was easier personally as late game in that game is more challenging due to vassal management than any mechanic in eu.

Only really an issue if you were trying to conquer the entire map. If you kept your blob to a semi-reasonable (historically speaking) size it was a cakewalk unless you intentionally handicapped yourself by being stupid.

[Ashling]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

I haven't played any of the Victoria games. The only paradox games I've played are CK2, CK3, Stellaris, and EU4, and my personal experience is that that's the order of how punishing they are.

They're being a bit cheeky. EU4 is hard. But I'd say it's more of a kind of game that has a Low skill floor for big & easy countries, high skill ceiling for custom/smaller countries. Gradients and all that.

As for punishing, yeah, EU4 doesn't have many systems in place to help you recover. Revanchism (a bonus you get for losing land) is nice, but it won't win you wars. Other people have given you good advice, make alliances and strike first it's better to start a war on your terms than on other's. Try and mold the shape of the map in your favor anticipating future rivals. And never give up! Unless you're bored, it's a game spend your time how you want.

Originally posted by bri:

Only really an issue if you were trying to conquer the entire map. If you kept your blob to a semi-reasonable (historically speaking) size it was a cakewalk unless you intentionally handicapped yourself by being stupid.

I'd go a step further and say the CK series actually gets easier as time moves on as you have better laws and institutions in place for your realm. EU4 gets harder as nations consolidate and colonize meaning you have to keep up somehow.

[SailaNamai]

CK2 and 3 are both easy games, within in the universe of paradox grand strategy games. But I'll say that they have a pretty huge entry barrier because how the feudal and in particular inheritance systems take some time to get a grasp on. Took me about 250 hours until I was able to one-tag in CK3, while it was somewhere close to 10 times that in EU.

In EU4 any sieging army will, once battle occurs, be counted as the attacker. This, I think, is one of the reasons newer players find it hard to find success. If you are on equal footing with an enemy you should break your siege, otherwise you will probably loose the battle. Respectively if you face a stronger army then utilize your forts. Beat them back when they start a siege, try and capture something and retreat behind your forts.
I also think people tend to stay in political map-mode when fighting wars. Once I started switching to geographical my decisions of where to fight, from which direction to engage and so on became intuitively better.

War may be the continuation of diplomacy with other means but in EU4 good diplomacy will prevent you being DOW'ed very reliably. The bigger they are, the more powerful enemies they have. Ally those but also keep an eye on them and adapt your alliance to the changing landscape. Don't put yourself in a position of weakness if an ally is engaged in another war.
I think a common mistake is players trying to appease the AI. If France rivals you don't try to improve relations or anything like that. Tell the world you don't like them either, rival them and you will soon be able to ally their enemies. In the early stages of the game I tend to go over diplo limit regularly unless trying to fill a diplomatic idea group or integrating a vassal. If your choice is between getting declared on and paying an additional diplo mana then you should.

[basiccTV]

Get strong allies that is one of the most important things. I was playing netherlands and france hated me and wanted my provinces in belgium. But i had builded alliance network around europe to counter france, i had allied poland / austria / aragon / and venice. That way france didnt declared war agaisnt me. Even when i was way smaller and had smaller army (but had way bigger economy, i was earning 200 more ducats per month more than second biggest economy in the world).