NefariousKoel wrote:
Gutted for simplicity? Pfah! You and I must see strategy games in completely different terms. Perhaps only from an Event perspective, ever since ripping out the historical multi-choice events and replacing them with a handful of random punishment ones between EU2 and EU3!
Never been a fan of the game by event mechanic, it's why I disliked CK1 too much. IMHO CK1 was Paradox's worst game out of their main titles, you couldn't do anything at all really aside from respond to events. I don't mind if they are a part of the game, just so long as they are not the whole game.
I didn't really remember much of any EU game's events. Meh. They were there, there was some flavour, beyond that they weren't all that relevant to me.
Quote:
EU4 is more detailed & complicated than EU3 in a few areas.
Like?
Quote:
Sorry, but numerous facets of EU3's game mechanics just plain sucked or didn't work well. Sometimes the AI couldn't even use it properly. I think it was the weakest showing in the series due to this being the case, even after the assloads of expansions they poured on. EU3 was ultimately an exercise in frustration for me.
Sucking AI is a different issue.
Quote:
(EDIT: Since you stated, "EU4 has been a disappointment for me over the last few years" I'm guessing you were also talking about EU3?)
Nah, I liked EU3. I mean, out of the Clausewitz games they have done (Vicky 2, CK2, HoI3, EU4), I think EU4 is easily the worst - it's the only one that after an hour of playing I thought, "well, this sucks balls" and did something else. March of the Eagles had that effect on me as well but that's not a main game of theirs, I think it's a mod or something? (It sucks too anyway

).
I do admit that my first impression of Vicky 2 and HoI3 was pretty bad as well, though I think not as bad as what I think of EU4. But as the expansions came out so I could do more than watch a game run on autopilot, they became interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if EU4 followed that route.