Paradox Grand Strategy

[Megalodon]

Now that Steam sale season is upon us again. I find myself wondering whether picking up a new strategy game is worth it. Specifically giving 'Grand Strategy' a go. It seems that the go to dev for these games is Paradox. However they have 4 recentish games on offer; Crusader Kings 2, Hearts of Iron 3, Victoria 2 and Europa Universalis 4. All with predominantly positive receptions. So I'm a bit lost. Does it simply boil down to the time period of choice, or are there major differences in gameplay/objective across the games? All I really know at this point is that these games are rather complicated, with steep learning curves, are heavy on the micro management, and lack the direct player involvement in combat that defines a series like Total War.

Advice? Recommendations? Which of these games do you prefer and why?

 

[Muspelheim]

They all have a rather steep learning curve, yes. There's not really a good beginner's choice, all you can do is jump in and go from there.

There are some differences between the games beside the time period, although they all have a similar frame work.

Hearts of Iron 3 is focused on the Second World War. It's a rather Spartan game, giving you a brief window in history that you can only really effect militarily. You manage production, move troops about and organize theatres, guard your supply lines and keep an eye on research. It's a more war-focused game than the others in the series. Great fun, though.

Crusader Kings 2 is more about court drama and individuals in power, rather than countries. You play as a specific character, a noble with different personality traits and resources. You do the usual troop movements over a map, but there are much more focus on intrigue and relations. When the character you are playing as die, their crown heir is the one you take control of, which can end up going hilariously wrong if your groomed firstborn die and you end up playing as an insane freakchild with hardly a thaler to his name, with rival barons closing in to divide up dad's fortune. Damn fun.

Victoria 2 is set during the industrial era, and is more about developing and expanding your nation state. Curiously, while war is an option, moving little soldiers around the map is often the least efficient solution. It's a fun look at the era, but it's the least friendly introduction. It's a bit too complicated for its own good.

Europa Universalis 4 is the old bread and butter of the Paradox series. It's fairly straight forward. You take charge of a country during the 15'th century, and fight and plot your way to glory from there. The other Paradox titles tend to focus more on one element (like court drama or combat), but the EU series tries to have all the usual trappings of the genre in equal measure. Religion, economy, diplomacy, subterfuge, moving men around the map... All are there, and all are tools in your belt.

None of them are particularly easy, but I'd suggest Europa Universalis 4 as a starting point. It contains most of the elements present in all the other games, and is the best way to simple see how you feel about the genre at large. The focus is a bit more general, and it might connect better with experiences from other games.

 

[Frission]

Well you can see the descriptions online, but here's the gist of it.

Crusader Kings II revolves around playing a specific dynasty of character, who have their own traits and can die. There's alot of interpersonal intrigue mixed with statehood. It takes place in the early medieval ages to the late middle ages. (784 to 1066 depending on what DLC's you have to 1453)

In Europa Universalis IV you take the role of a country, sort of like in Civilization. It's more focused on statehood. It lasts from the beginning of the renaissance to the start of the Victorian Era (15th century to 19th century)

Victoria II also allows you take the role of a country, but the role of class division, economics, diplomacy, expansion and revolution is far more complex. It lasts from 1836 to 1936.

Hearts of Iron III lets you play a country in World War II. The time scale in this game is way smaller, there's far more micromanagement and unlike other games the whole thing is centered around a war.

In terms of complexity I would rank the games like this:
Europa Universalis IV > Victoria II = Crusader Kings II > Hearts of Iron.

They can all be rather complex and you decide the objectives you want out of your game. Do you want to take over the world, change history or just play through an alternate history? You decide really. One of the fun parts of these games is you can transfer a save between them.
I would suggest starting with Europa Universalis, since it's a little more forgiving than the other games.

 

[Delerien]

I started with Europa Universalis III and by basically watching an entire commented playthrough first. Which is probably not a bad Idea regardless of the game you choose. The ingame tutorials are almost hilariously useless (also the HoI 3 ones make my game crash). All of the games can become really fun and rewarding once you get the gist of it. So I'd advise you to choose the time period you prefer.
That being said Europa Universalis is most likely the easiest of them to get started with while Victoria 2 is in my opinion the least noob friendly. But as I said, with a video or guide of your choice at your side you should be able to make it.

 

[Kahani]

Advice? Recommendations? Which of these games do you prefer and why?

Whatever you do, don't start with Hearts of Iron. I'd say Europa Universalis is probably the easiest one to start with, since it's the most traditional of the lot - you play as and control all the actions of a single specific country. Crusader Kings is great fun, but you control a family line rather than a country, so it gets a lot harder to figure out exactly how much control you have over a given territory or character, and that control varies a lot throughout the game. Victoria is again more traditional with control of an actual country, but it focusses a lot more on trade and diplomacy which is again a bit trickier to get your head around than just invading people and taking their stuff. Hearts of Iron is virtually incomprehensible without spending many hours just figuring out what the hell is going on before you even unpause it and start the game rolling. If you want a game like that with more focus on combat rather than expanding an empire over centuries, I'd recommend Supreme Ruler rather than Hearts of Iron.

The important thing with all of them is that you can't get too attached to any one play through, because especially at the start you will screw up repeatedly, often in ways that won't become obvious until it's much too late to go back and reload even if you're that way inclined. Whichever you pick, start off playing a few small, inconsequential countries and learn how things work before you try taking over the world as one of the big guns. Taking over Britain having started as a single Welsh county can be just as difficult and satisfying as taking over the world as one of the major powers, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get started with because you only have a few things to focus on to begin with.

 

[Amaror]

I suggest EU 4, it should be the easiest to get into. Victoria 2 is super complex and HoI is also pretty complex and really hard to get into.
Just try EU 4 and i suggest starting as Portugal. You are usually pretty safe, because you are naturally friendly with your big neighbor castille. Additionally you have a really good position to start colonisation as early as possible, which is a good way to expand without actually going to war.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Crusader Kings 2 is the best option out there of Paradox's offerings. That game is absolutely worth playing, no matter what. I just find it has the most compelling gameplay of all of them. It is far less about just rolling over everything via war and much more about the focus on dynasties and character drama. Amazing game.

 

[Frankster]

I started with hearts of iron series (hoi2 specifically, which imo has the BEST research system of ANY paradox games)and feel it's an effective introduction to paradox games due to its narrow focus (warfare) which should make more sense to people with little experience of grand strategy games but who are familiar with war themed games, everyone knows how ww2 is supposed to go and even without knowing the game mechanics when you pick a country you know what you're in for (i'm playing France? ok i can expect the germans to come blitz after june 1939).

Tbh reading around this thread it just goes to show how difficulty is subjective when it comes to paradox games.

I mean.. Victoria 2 super complex? xD And Eu4 is easier? Like wtf. Eu4 has the most factors to consider out of all of them and it's far easier in that game to be thrashed by a rival nations pretty significantly, imo.
Vic 2 has its own quirks specific to the era it's covering such as industrialization and factory management but laissez faire goverments can manage that for beginners leaving them to learn the game in general.


Crusader kings...Can almost be classified as an rpg. It's a very unique game. But it can be argued to be the most complex game of all of them due to its focus on personal interactions. At least with games like hearts of iron you know playing as uk the axis hate you and you gotta fight against them, usa are your allies past x point and will help you, etc.. (at least if you don't try to deviate from history).

In ck2? Oh it's rarely that black and white since countries are made up of a lot of individuals with their own motivations.

So yeah in the end I think you're going to find it hard to get a concensus on this since people will give you different answers but ultimately they are ALL complex in their own way (ex:hearts of iron is easier for me due to knowing whats going to happen, and I love the hyper detailed war management which I feel is lacking in all of the other paradox games) and your own individual tastes will greatly influence which you find easy and which one you need to wrap your head around.

I'm sure someone with an economist background to give another example will find Vic2 the easiest to get into simply because they will take to factory and economy management in that game like a duck to water. By contrast someone with a keen interest in medieval societies will find ck2 their dream game and will find plotting to overthrow their king so they can be calife instead of the calife come naturally to them. Other people just wouldn't know what to do with factories in vic2 and end up building tons of factories based on artillery, guns and simple sailing ships...Only to find find that their economy collapses because not many are buying those products and they enter a recession.
Others will start as a king in ck2..And suddenly find themselves deposed or killed by their own spymasters and jealous vassals or see their realm tear itself apart in civil war due to marrying the wrong person.

In the end they are all worth a look imo ;P

 

[O maestre]

I am in a similar position as the OP, I am however also considering the supreme ruler series, how is that in regards to starting off?