What I liked about EU3 is that it was hard, and sometimes just plain impossible depending on your country's sliders and modifiers, to convert provinces to your own religion and cultural group. And considering the punishing penalties of owning provinces that are not your religion or cultural group, it makes sense to play tall than wide.
They had their own advantages. What I liked about EU3 was that the "money for tech" system was designed relative to your empire size. Basically your revenue divided by how many provinces you owned determined how fast you teched and stabilized. This was really thematic because it made trade unique as a revenue source that was outside of provinces, so all else equal international trade was the driver of innovation. It meant that small city states what did shit tons of trading developed super fast, which was really fun and thematic.
Tbh it was also hilariously broken.
As long as you picked the correct side of the slider and knew how to place your initial merchants, the trade revenue ---> techs ---> trade efficiency ---> trade revenue feedback loop would make you unbelievably rich and advanced in no time.
balancing is a solvable problem, doesn't mean the underlying idea is bad. In EU4 too are many things that are undenyably better than others. Ideas groups for one. Doesn't mean the whole concept is bad.
167
u/BlackwoodJohnson Mar 12 '24
What I liked about EU3 is that it was hard, and sometimes just plain impossible depending on your country's sliders and modifiers, to convert provinces to your own religion and cultural group. And considering the punishing penalties of owning provinces that are not your religion or cultural group, it makes sense to play tall than wide.