After the two week interruption, it's
time to return to video games (There will be a final Star Wars piece
tomorrow).
After outlining the Europa Universalis
systems
and examining
the uniqueness of characters in EU: Rome, it's time to compare EU3
and EU4 (EU3 complete vs EU4 vanilla – just to be clear).
Upon playing a new session it became
clear that the difference between EU 3 and 4 is less like the
difference between using a Mac or PC, and more like driving the 2016
model of a car after driving the 2015 model. Playing EU3 will
prepare a player for all the components of EU4. The player will see
both games use the same underlying systems, just as two Ford Focuses
will handle the same on the road. An experience player of EU3 will
have no surprises playing EU4.
That is, until the details begin.
The most noticeable difference happened
during the first war. Soldiers move from province to province with a
line indicating where they are moving to, and the line fills up as
they reach their destination. Twenty thousand French soldiers, at
war with Aragon (Southeastern Iberian Peninsula), were nearing
Barcelona, but out of the fog of war twice as many Aragonians arrived
first. In EU3 a move order could be canceled at any time,
immediately. Woe, in EU4 the french commander discovered that after
an army has moved halfway, it is required to complete the journey.
The French readied their lines, and then fled back to Paris, rifles
and cannons abandoned in the rout.
Though this change was initially
surprising and devastating it is an improvement. In EU3 it was
possible to play keep away, where both the AI and player would find
it difficult to chase down a fleeing force. If an army marched
toward an enemy they could run away, and if intercepting forces were
deployed, the enemy would changed direction.
There is another, smaller change in
movement but it's hard to explain. I' m not really sure it even
exists, but as I play it feels like it must. It seems units move
faster than they should. I've been ambushed a number of times by
enemies who seemed to reached me much faster than I thought possible.
So fast I wasn't able to avoid battle. I wonder if the enemy's
forces move slightly faster than mine, or if the computer shows them
in one province for a short period of time, even if they have already
moved into the next, or if it gives all armies a bonus to movement
across many provinces if they plot it out instead of moving
piecemeal. I don't know, I can't find anything on the EU4 wiki, but
it still feels different than EU3.
If the changes in movement are small
and subtle, the most obvious change is the simplification of EU4 by
rolling a large number of components into one. Every nation has
administrative, diplomatic, and military points. Every country
receives 3 of each per month, with bonuses for the current ruler and
hired advisers. These points can be spent on many different systems.
Paradox (the developer) decided the game would be better if they
took a number of the systems of EU3 and placed them all into the
category of: spend points to solve a problem. For instance, in EU3
there were five different technology categories (Government,
Production, Trade, Naval, and Land). On the economy screen the
player would decide how much of the budget would go into each. But
in EU4 these five are consolidated to three with the same names as
the point systems. Government has been combined with Production and
Trade has been united with Naval. They are now improved with points
and have no connection to the economy. Both of these choices seem
like they weren't thought out. Both the economy and technology are
now too simplified and the game doesn't seem to benefit from either
choice.
Points are also used for a number of
other elements where before the player had to actually do something.
Take for instance: rebels. In EU3, when provinces became
disenchanted with the player's benevolent rule they rebelled. The
player had to raise armies to chase the rebels across the country
side; spending money, manpower, and time in the pursuit. Now, as
potential rebels become agitated they declare their intent to rebel.
The player can preempt their revolution by spending military points
to put them down. In EU4 I've never had to fight rebels, except
during the English Civil War. In EU3 it was troublesome and draining
to defeat rebels, but to reduce them to a nonentity in EU4 eliminates
the threat of overextending when acquiring territory after a war.
There are more elements that use this simplified system and I never
found it fun to spend some points by clicking a button, where before
I had to think, plan, and solve a problem.
A positive change is the religion
system rework. Unlike the point system, religion has been expanded;
introducing minor sects. Further improved are the rules for religion
spread. In EU3 religions spread erratically, and if a nation
practiced religious acceptance it could expect a patchwork of
Protestants, Buddhists, Catholics, Sunnis, and Animists, living
together in the middle of France! Now religions don't spread except
for Protestants and Reform Protestants, and they do so by creating
Centers of Reformation, which proselytize their religion to nearby
provinces. It's a welcome change that helps the player understand
the mechanics.
Another excellent change is the impact
of religion on diplomacy. Different religions no longer seriously
hinder diplomatic relationships. In EU3 a difference in religion
would result in a permanent -200 relationship. In EU4 a difference
of religion provides a permanent -10 to -20 modifier.
A -20 is substantial, but can be overcome if an alliance is desired.
This change makes the game more realistic and allowed my French
nation to crush the Austrians with the aid of the Ottomans. Another
change which makes the game more challenging is a limit on diplomatic
relationships. At the beginning a player can have only four
alliances and any number over comes with a diplomatic point penalty
(along with other smaller penalties). A final diplomatic change is
the increased ease of obtaining casus belli. Part of this is because
of the inclusion of the imperialism casus belli, unlocked at
diplomatic tech level 23, but it allows the invasion of any country.
It hands the player a blank check for declaring war.
The changes I have mentioned are clear
cut technical changes. To conclude, I want to mention a conceptual
change in the game not based on a single component, but is the result
of a number of alterations. It's something I think has changed, but
I'm not sure, as it could be my interpretation of having one and a
half playthroughs. This change (if it exists at all) is the result
of too many casus belli, the introduction of
diplomatic/administrative points, and the ease of suppressing rebels.
It seemed in EU4 it was easier to make small gains, but harder to
make larger ones. This idea seems reasonable, but the difference
between EU3 and 4 is remarkable. In EU3, though there were many
wars, there was always a number of tiny nations. They existed on the
fluctuating borders of powerful neighbors. Unlike EU3, tiny nations
in EU4, once conquered, are very unlikely to reacquire their freedom.
The end result is in EU4 the whole world is consolidated into a
small number of large countries, unlike in EU3 where even in 1821
(the end of the game) there would be a whole host of small nations.
For example, playing as Great Britain,
I encountered a completely unified India by about 1650. Tunis had
unified the entire north-western African even earlier. The Ottoman
Empire and the Commonwealth (Poland-Lithuania) owned massive swaths
of land as well, and Songhai held a significant portion of southern
Africa. I don't have any pictures from EU3 to compare it to, so
you'll have to trust my memory, but in EU3 this did not happen as
quickly and it didn't last. Of course nations (especially the
player's) should be able to expand, and it is not that which is
different. It is the lack of smaller nations filling in the
boundaries. Part of it is the change in rebels, which used to tear
countries apart rarely arise. Additionally, after a war in EU3 it
was common practice to tear off chunks of the enemy by freeing their
conquered subjects. This was cheaper than taking the provinces for
yourself, so you could do more damage to the enemy, and then scoop up
their scattered remnants later. In EU4 it didn't seem as if the cost
is less, and you had to spend diplomatic points to do it, whereas
before it was free. I'm not sure if the new result are more
realistic, but I definitely don't care for it.
And that looks to be about it. While
there are many more differences I've discovered, such as new rules
for forts or increased events, and a whole host of undiscovered
content (I've only played England and France) I think for now we'll
leave the Europa Universalis series and move on to another game. I'm
sure I'll visit it sometime, along with some comments about Crusaders
Kings II, and thoughts on the DLC for EU4.
The end verdict, as the title implies
is EU4 vanilla is just as good as EU3, being better in some areas and
worse in others, but only slightly. I don't know why they simplified
in some places while increasing the complexity in others, but maybe
I'll discover the answer in the DLC.
Europa Universalis
Rome, 3, and 4 Series
Comments
Post a Comment