Paradox Studio Thread

Favorite Paradox Game?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
The latest fix seems to have somewhat improved performance.

I dont know how any of this new shit works though.
Yeah, the game certainly does run faster. It's just a shame that they had to absolutely gut everything that made Stellaris appeal to me to achieve it. No big deal though, I just reverted back to the last patch and it's still just as fun to me.
I got about 70 years into a game on the new patch, and I spent most of that time trying to stop my specialists from leaving their jobs for no reason at all. My research planets were dealing with 20-40% unemployment while there were plenty of jobs available, but manually assigning jobs just made the problem worse. I finally caved and started googling for advice, just to find that it was a bug caused by one of my civics (dark consortium). I imagine it's going to take most of 2025 to iron out the major bugs and make all the different economic systems play nice with each other again, so maybe I'll give nu-stellaris a try in 2026 and I'll really like it. But for right now, learning the new patch is too frustrating. It's hard to tell what's broken, and what's working as intended. I've seen a few other gaymers in YT comments who are having similar issues. Empire creation seems to be a minefield atm, there's a a bunch of different civics/origins that haven't been correctly integrated with the overhauled economy.
 
So whats the general opinion on EU5 ? I'm fairly optimistic but i thought imperator rome looked great until i got my hands on it.
Cautious optimism. The dev diaries and gameplay I've seen look really cool. It looks better than CK3 and Vicky 3 were looking at this pre-release stage. But I'm worried if I'll be able to run it and I obviously trust Paradox generally about as far as I can throw them
 
I always exterminate the lesser races.
Extermination is cringe, take the Sun Cult pill and establish a based (based on what? THE SUN of course!) caste system instead.
Bulwar is also mostly still good so long as you steer clear of GloboHomo Jaddtrash/furshit futa gnolls/anything about Kheterata that isn't about conquering them and beheading their catbois, Centaurs are also a fun WILD RIDE if you don't mind being questionably furry, and ogres are incapable of being anything but kewl and shrekpilled.
Do not for the love of Castellos play anywhere in Haless/Sarhal however unless you want to be exposed to lethal levels of neo-orientalist brainrot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Another Char Clone
Extermination is cringe, take the Sun Cult pill and establish a based (based on what? THE SUN of course!) caste system instead.
Greenskins as slaves? Please. They're basically a walking bioweapon, extermination is the only sensible option.


Black Demesne had its moments, but that whole “give land to apprentices” gimmick? Yeah, hard pass.
Ended up bending the game a bit just to get a male ruler under the Iron Sceptre.


Dwarfs? Absolute legends. Full genocide mode, 100% justified.


The blue elves are pretty great too.

A lot of the ones I like have the whole "Restore the old glory" vibe.


And yes, the flood of “strong female characters” is exhausting, but credit where it’s due: there’s still some solid content.
I did cringe a lot when I found out that Corin is based on a dudes DND campaign.
The fact that he had his female OC get impregnated by a half orc monster does give troony tunes vibes.
If you rollplay as a woman you're a faggot.
 
Do not try Anbennar, unless playing dwarves/you have an interracial breeding fetish it's a lost cause and will only cause you pain.
I wouldn't write off Anbennar entirely unless they remove Venail/Aelnar. Then you'll know they've hit the point of no return. I know for a fact that a bunch of people there want Venail gone, but they know people really like it and it makes them seethe.

Honestly, I don't really read events in EU4. Like, if you're playing mods for the quality of the writing, you're already on to a loser.

If @Null wants a good mod to try and shake it up a bit, Ante Bellum's pretty good, given it's focus on being fun over being plausible
 
the burgundian succession was very, very strange and I think it resolved with Burgundy simply joining the HRE, blocking France. Aragon and Castille both had strong alliances and didn't declare war on each other.

I'm basically frozen in my game now. the entire HRE is coalitioned against me but the emperor, Bohemia, is my ally.

I think I hate where the game is at now because if you let things go on too long the small countries start building up dev until they're each 40 dev provinces. then you can't annex them. but I felt like I was making fucking crazy fast gains.
You lucked out with the RNG on Burgundy then, as it sounds like the AI was able to either reach 1500 without triggering the succession crisis (mostly likely rng killed Charles the Bold before he became Duke, since he has a hidden -95% heir chance flag that'll all but guarantee the crisis if he ascends) or somehow all the other ais were as nice as possible to Burgundy in their event decisions in the crisis. Even after that there's still like two more checks on events that have to be passed before it can actually enter the empire, I've never actually seen the AI pull it off.

I don't know how viable a strategy it is in the HRE, but a strategy to get around troublesome coalitions is to pick off the weaker members - declaring war on allies of the coalition members that aren't in a coalition and then vassalizing those members in the peace - after which you can declare war on the weakened coalition. You don't even have to win, you just need to get a peace since that blocks them from joining a coalition. A similar strategy would be allying an ally of a country you want to invade, calling them in as a cobelligerent in another war, and then declaring war on the target which will break their alliance with your new ally since cobelligerents in a war can't join a war against someone they're already an ally of a war in.
I was low effort trolling, but I do seriously believe the Ottomans have a stronger case for being Rome than the Christian successor states (Francia, HRE) in the West or the Russians do. It lacks the continuity of state but it did more or less absorb the same territory.
Minus the entire western half of the empire, which the Franks absorbed half a millennia prior.

Interestingly this echoes the arguments people in the sixteenth century had over what constitutes being a more legitimate successor to the Roman Empire. Charles V and Suleiman had an exchange of letters early into both their reigns where they got into an argument over who was the True and Honest Roman Emperor and Suleiman's argument was mostly territorial in nature while Charles' was more civilizational. It wound up where Suleiman would only acknowledge him as King of Spain and Charles would just call him the Turk.
I hate the Roman Empire.
If you want a better argument, you could point out that both empires were mainly interested in Europe as a source of slaves and soldiers.
@Ughubughughughughughghlug for Vic 2 the biggest overhaul mods of the base game are TGC and GFM.
DoD is the most popular alt-hist mod but it's pretty barebones and there's a rework of it that add's a shit ton of flavor
I don't like the rework, it's far more railroaded and event-heavy than either TGC and GFM to the point it's clearly just trying to be the TNO of V2 mods.
Honestly you can do a pretty good simulation of the Napoleonic wars in EU/Vic2.
Hard disagree, EU4 is awful at simulating the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. It's not really good at simulating late-medieval Europe either but the simulation is much better in the first hundred years of a campaign than in the last hundred. Its coalition mechanic isn't even good at simulating how Napoleonic coalitions worked - but I'm not going to really fault them for that since the only game I've played with an actually engrossing coalition mechanic (I.E members having objectives, drawing in new members, defections, etc.) is Nobunaga's Ambition: Sphere of Influence.
Honestly, I don't really read events in EU4. Like, if you're playing mods for the quality of the writing, you're already on to a loser.
Good events aren't necessary for a good mod, but most standout mods have good events. Purely gameplay focused mods get reduced to niches in discord multiplayer servers for a reason.

If I want to play an alternate history or a fantasy mod, I need a compelling reason to actually do so since there are so many. Flavor is one of those things, especially since it's the only thing really separating states in EU4 aside from their map colors.
 
I don't like the rework, it's far more railroaded and event-heavy than either TGC and GFM to the point it's clearly just trying to be the TNO of V2 mods.
That sounds awful.

I remember how Paradox fans on the Forums used to rage about railroading, and then somewhere along the way the tastes and composition of the fanbase changed and they were suddenly all onboard with crap like mission trees. PDM had a happy medium of setting up generic versions of major events (the Belgian Congo, for example, could be triggered for any middling civilized power, so it could be the Serbian Congo, for example) and chains that required logical, historically justifiable conditions to be met with alternate history paths built in to that too. The best one - which could have used some work, but just having this at all was nice - being the Divided States of America. There were others like the Imperial Federation. It was well-designed. It's what Paradox games should have stayed as.

(A non-republican US loses its ideological justification and collapses into individual states in a sort of parallel to the Warlord Era. My idea for expanding it was just that the warlord era vibes could have been more explicit with a dynamic mixture of ideological splinter-states, nationalists and individual states competing. So there could be a Communist America, a Fascist America, a Republican - liberal - America and a Reactionary America, whatever that actually looks like.* "Warlords" being analogous to willful state governments that don't want to fully commit to a pretender government but loosely ally with them makes sense.)

*I've bickered on Paradox Forums about this, but "reactionary" is difficult to interpret in America and, unless you want to go the slavery or Bible-thumping routes, I think the closest thing to it actually is just extreme states rights/taking the Constitution very seriously.
 
If I want to play an alternate history or a fantasy mod, I need a compelling reason to actually do so since there are so many. Flavor is one of those things, especially since it's the only thing really separating states in EU4 aside from their map colors
I get where you're coming from, but not all of that is events. The basic scenario, mission trees (I know people shit on mission trees, but I personally think they're harmless. They push the AI to do vaguely historical shit, and a player can just ignore them if they so desire) etc. do a lot of legwork. Like, real talk, how often would you say you read events in Vanilla EU4 especially? Trying to base narrative strength on events leads to TNO, and that way madness lies

Ante Bellum is a good case of this. The background lore is sort of there, and it's kind of cool, but it definitely doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny because AB was initially designed as a CK2 mod, so there's huge handwaved gaps between about 1200 and 1444. It's compelling enough because you get to do shit like Nestorian China, or Serbian Byzantium or Anglo Saxon Britain.

I mean, the most telltale sign of a good mod is when Paradox starts nicking concepts from it for DLC, which they definitely did for AB
 
So whats the general opinion on EU5 ? I'm fairly optimistic but i thought imperator rome looked great until i got my hands on it.

Stellaris expansion looks like another shitshow. I honestly don't know how people can play it. Its just a never ending series of frustrations whenever i try.
Hoping for the best, but not expecting it.
CK3 was the most depressing shit.
 
Anyone have general tips for playing EU4?
Pirate the initial release without expansions, play the tutorial. The tutorial is still a full game, but you have some missions/tips to get to know each system and also you have added modifiers to make the tutorial missions shorter and easier. The base game hasn't radically changed, it's more that they added stuff for other cultures. For example, 1.0 France was the same as 1.0 Thailand, but today each nation/culture/government has more custom stuff, so it's not too hard to jump in if you know the basics.
 
That sounds awful.

I remember how Paradox fans on the Forums used to rage about railroading, and then somewhere along the way the tastes and composition of the fanbase changed and they were suddenly all onboard with crap like mission trees.
I don't mind mission trees in theory, but I want them as a visual tool and something to mildly inform the AI, not as a railroad.

HPM and HFM are good examples for why the decision format isn't great but the actual mechanics of decisions are themselves superior to mission trees in anything outside of a very restricted timeframe. They have a lot more events and decisions for countries than PDM - many of them are generic (e.g. Serbian Congo) but a lot of the big or fan favorite countries get a lot of historical and alt-hist content to facilitate things the gameplay can't smoothly allow. E.G. there's an chain for France, under certain conditions, to gradually reclaim its lost colonies and even potentially usurp Britain, and an Austria that wins against Prussia has multiple options on how to unify Germany. The problem is that the UI for decisions and the tooltips are not good at adequately explaining to the player the potential tradeoffs or requirements for the more radical map-painting, especially since a lot of stuff has to be carried out in scripted events which can't be seen beforehand, or the steps needed to access the next one, and so it impedes a player's long-term planning and decision making.

Mission trees fail when they make everything into a mission and hand out bonuses like candy. Missions should only be things that would normally be handled in a decision or an event chain, and as a confirmation of stuff that has already happened in the 'story' but can't be done elegantly by the usual mechanics.
Like, real talk, how often would you say you read events in Vanilla EU4 especially?
Back when I was a teenager, EU4 was new and information on some stuff ingame was less readily available, I'd read them when they were actual flavor and not just event spam. I'm not playing a grand strategy game for a novel, but if it has interesting information about the history of a country or event it's trying to simulate I'd usually give it the time of the day. Same with the National Idea descriptions.
 
I'd read them when they were actual flavor and not just event spam.
Same for the tech descriptions. I hope they balance out the amount of text in EU5. They're just been adding new events, new missions and new everything so everything does feel like spam and I just check the modifiers, I barely even glance at the image for the event now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Computer God Autism
Honestly, the thing I most want out of EU5 is a true successor to Victoria 2. That might seem a bit backwards, but the thing I always liked about Victoria 2 was its mechanical depth. Yeah, it comes off as a bit aged now, but it focused on the simulation and didn't pull any punches with the complexity. EU5 looks like that, but better. And I'm into that
 
Back