Paradox Interactive Games Thread

[W]

We did it everyone! CK3 is out and it does not suck! Been playing since the second it installed (no preinstalling for Paradox games since they really don't have any piracy checks) and having a wonderful time! It's a bit of a different feel than CK2 and missing some of the features I liked most, however it is growing on me and is absolutely worth the buy. Scared to see how much DLC will cost.

[Bacon King]

I've never played nomads

Honestly me neither. I do want to go back and do a CK2 nomad game some day, but CK3 is such an improvement I really can't see myself downgrading any time soon

[Alben Barkley]

I'm digging CK3. Found it hard to get into Paradox games before. I tried Hearts of Iron but it seemed so complex and I just didn't have the time for it. This game, which got such great reviews and seemed so interesting that I just had to give it a shot, was a bit easier to dive into. The tutorial was actually helpful. And I like how it's like half-strategy, half-RPG. The greater focus on characters I think makes it a bit more accessible.

[Bacon King]

I've been getting back into Stellaris, lately, and it's genuinely very good now (especially with the right mods). Does anyone know if Imperator Rome is good yet?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I love Paradox games, but they're so time-consuming, esp. since I play quite slowly.

[dead0man]

CK3 is very good.  I'm running into the same problem I ran into in CK2...I can unite Ireland easy enough, I just have a hard time expanding anymore than that.  I am naked though, so I've got that going for me.

[Santander]

CK3 is a huge improvement, but way too easy. Starting as the Ethiopian Jew in 867, I easily won back-to-back Claim Throne wars and became King of Abyssinia within like, a decade, and then Holy Warred the F out of the neighbors. Once you reach the Mediterranean, you become so big the game becomes trivial and you can have fun with murder schemes and planting your dynasty on to Indian thrones. 867 Jewish start in CK2 was brutal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

CK3 is a huge improvement, but way too easy. Starting as the Ethiopian Jew in 867, I easily won back-to-back Claim Throne wars and became King of Abyssinia within like, a decade, and then Holy Warred the F out of the neighbors. Once you reach the Mediterranean, you become so big the game becomes trivial and you can have fun with murder schemes and planting your dynasty on to Indian thrones. 867 Jewish start in CK2 was brutal.

I haven't tried that start, mostly because of how hard it was in CK2. I probably should, sounds fun! My longest game so far saw me completely defeating all Muslims in Iberia (which took about two centuries but I agree was probably too easy) and then reforming to that medieval hipster Christianity and then dealing with Catholic Crusades against me.

I have noticed the pagans have a special option where you can literally abolish the Papacy and it's not easy (especially considering how difficult controlling all of Italy is for a pagan considering their starting locations), so that's what I'm playing for now. (and then I'll convert to Pope-less Catholicism and reform it to a liberal form of Christianity again!)

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Gotta love Scorza in TNO with his liberal fascism

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

I've been getting back into Stellaris, lately, and it's genuinely very good now (especially with the right mods). Does anyone know if Imperator Rome is good yet?

They recently released the Marius update for Imperator Rome which reworks some stuff. Though I can't tell you if it's better since I haven't played much of it since it was released.

[Alben Barkley]

Well I'm straight-up hooked on CK3 now, sunk dozens of hours into it and can't get enough. It's officially replaced Civ as my favorite strategy game.

Everyone says it's the most accessible Paradox game, but now that I've got the hang of it (more or less, there's still stuff I'm discovering in this game), which one should I try next? EU4 looks natural as it's basically a continuation of CK in terms of the time period, but is it the best next step in terms of gameplay?

[The Dowager Mod]

Stellaris just released a major update.

[Del Tachi]

Picked up hoi4 for the first time in a long time.  I got the recent dlc as well.  Does anyone feel like there’s too much going on now?  I don’t like managing fuel, espionage, or a host of other things.  The game has turned into way too much work.

Late reply, I know, but my biggest issue with Paradox games in general in that they're more fun to think about playing than actually playing, if that makes any sense. 

[Bacon King]

Well I'm straight-up hooked on CK3 now, sunk dozens of hours into it and can't get enough. It's officially replaced Civ as my favorite strategy game.

Everyone says it's the most accessible Paradox game, but now that I've got the hang of it (more or less, there's still stuff I'm discovering in this game), which one should I try next? EU4 looks natural as it's basically a continuation of CK in terms of the time period, but is it the best next step in terms of gameplay?

What particular elements of the gameplay do you like most about CK3? While all Paradox grand strategy games have a lot of things in common, each one has its own unique areas of focus.

Honestly with the latest Imperator patch every one of the "current" games is good (Victoria 2 is my favorite but it also has by far the harshest learning curve) so you'll probably enjoy whichever one you pick. Still though you'll probably have the easiest time picking up a game that expounds more on your favorite things from CK3

For example if you really love the way CK3 focuses so much on specific characters and their interpersonal relationships, EU4 might be a bit of a jarring change for you because all of that stuff is much more abstracted. Your ruler for example is just a name and three stats that range from 0 to 6; royal marriages are just a diplomatic agreement that doesn't involve actual characters at all. It's still a very fun game and includes a lot of things CK3 doesn't, but the change in scope might be difficult to adjust to if that was your favorite part of CK3

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I thought CK3 was great but a bit unpolished when it launched (also lacked some of the great elements in CK2 brought by later DLCs, like secret societies, saints and artifacts), but the recent Norse expansion pack is pretty great and added some great new features. Hopefully the other stuff makes an appearance in later expansions as well.

Well I'm straight-up hooked on CK3 now, sunk dozens of hours into it and can't get enough. It's officially replaced Civ as my favorite strategy game.

Everyone says it's the most accessible Paradox game, but now that I've got the hang of it (more or less, there's still stuff I'm discovering in this game), which one should I try next? EU4 looks natural as it's basically a continuation of CK in terms of the time period, but is it the best next step in terms of gameplay?

I actually think EU4 is quite different gameplay-wise, for one it's based on an actual country instead of a dynasty and all the RPG mechanics of CK aren't really there (there's still leaders but they're basically just randomly generated and a new one is once the old one dies) and is based more around colonialism around the globe. It's probably the most logical next step but be warned a lot of people who are into CK don't like it.

[7,052,770]

FYI, all Paradox games are on sale this weekend.

I'm thinking about picking up a couple of them, for example Victoria 2 + all DLC is only $14.73. Maybe I'll get Hearts of Iron 4 and Imperator while they're available for so little.

[Alben Barkley]

For those who were asking, I have now become hooked on HOI4 actually on top of CK3. (The British Empire just dominated the globe the other day, so much for the sun setting...) These games are like crack for me, holy s--t I can't believe I never got into them before.

I haven't played Vic 2 yet, now I guess I'll hold out for Vic 3 but I look forward to that a lot because that's one of my favorite time periods in history.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

OH MY GOD. IT'S HAPPENING!!!

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

OH MY GOD. IT'S HAPPENING!!!

On one hand, holy crap it’s happening.


On the other hand, I’m really nervous to see what post-CKII paradox (which moved from hardish simulation to ‘lol, spend mana and do what you want’) will do to their best game.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OH MY GOD. IT'S HAPPENING!!!

On one hand, holy crap it’s happening.


On the other hand, I’m really nervous to see what post-CKII paradox (which moved from hardish simulation to ‘lol, spend mana and do what you want’) will do to their best game.

Its worrisome for me as well. Yet at the same time, I for one hated the difficulty level with the political manipulation in Vicky II and the barriers to doing anything if the wrong party is in power. In Victoria Revolution, you can just click set as ruling party (as long as you aren't a Democracy) and get the "freedom" of a State Capitalist political party allowing you to build what you want and where.

This comes with a revolt risk penalty. In some ways this is more realistic, as a number of Absolute Monarchies would do what they want and of course incur the wrath of various groups along the way but they could do it.  In Vicky II, you got to coax this, press that issue and micro your way to anything. This is a large part of the reason why I soured on Vicky II quickly and just kept playing Vicky Revolutions.

I even played Vicky Revolutions last Saturday as Russia in honor of the Vicky III announcement.

For reference, this is a list of features I made in a desired future Vicky III game:

Last year, I basically wrote a forum post on steam detailing what my ideal Vicky 3 game is:
1. HOI 4 Army Command and Control (perhaps unlocked late in game with Great Wars or something)
2. Cabinet system from HOI 2
3. More indepth political actions
4. Ability to entice the upper house with bribes, land, threats, murder etc (b/c the idea that an absolute Monarch is stymied by a bunch of nobles seems rather ridiculous considering historical examples of strong willing monarchs "having their way" one way or another). It would work similar to the estates in EU IV.
5. Land Policy being more then just a reform selection like in Vicky 2. This was a critical issues in many 19th century countries and it should have range of impacts on the economy.

[7,052,770]

Started playing around in Imperator: Rome last night. It's a lot to take in. I hope to watch some tutorials and get a better idea this weekend.

[nerd73]

 In Vicky II, you got to coax this, press that issue and micro your way to anything. This is a large part of the reason why I soured on Vicky II quickly and just kept playing Vicky Revolutions.

I'm fairly certain that you could do this in Vic2 as well (with a similar penalty to militancy), last time I checked?

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

 In Vicky II, you got to coax this, press that issue and micro your way to anything. This is a large part of the reason why I soured on Vicky II quickly and just kept playing Vicky Revolutions.

I'm fairly certain that you could do this in Vic2 as well (with a similar penalty to militancy), last time I checked?

Yeah, as long as you have absolute or Prussian monarchy you can. You get a militancy hit if you are Prussian monarchy, because hey we had elections what are you doing.

I’m not a fan of the idea of being able to bribe the upper house. The core gameplay is about coxing your nation into the modern world within the restriction of your internal politics. Just getting a ‘screw it, I do what I want button’ would kill allot of the appeal for me. The modifiers and their effect do need to be more clear though

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thoughts on this video, y'all?

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I don't HoI because a grand strategy game that only goes a few decades and inevitably ends in total war seems boring.
P-Dox is fun when it's about the long term