This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/paradoxplaza by /u/The_ChadTC on 2025-05-10 15:08:31+00:00.

It feels like like V3 and CK3 had monstrously smaller scopes than EUV. I get that some of this is economic inevitability, since EU4 is still Paradox’ most popular game, but I don’t think it’s justifiable how smaller the scope was.

Crusader Kings 3 had an absurd amount of content cut from the previous game to the point that, if you were a CK2 veteran, you either didn’t like 3 at launch or you finished your first run and instantly felt like playing 2 again - to this day I can’t bring myself to like a CK3 run; Victoria 3 was launched to be a completely different game than 2, but then the problem is that the game seemed like an engine test for the game - the warfare was too simple, the diplomacy was too simple, the politics were too simple, and the only true upgrade was the buildings, but even then mechanics regarding them, like foreign investment and ownership, were either not present or simplified. EU5, on the other hand, has completely new and extremely daring systems and mechanics, that intend to simulate the world on a scale never seen before.

Again, I understand what caused this, which is the relative popularity of EU4, but I wonder how much the EU IP is just more popular, and how much it has become a self fulfilling prophecy, where they just assume Europa Universalis will always be more popular and pull back resources from other IPs, which diminish.

Edit: Just found out EU4 is not Paradox’s most popular game. It’s very far behind HoIIV, a bit behind CK3 (yuck) and kinda tied with Stellaris. Still, considering the relative age of EU4, I think it’s clear they believe it to have the most potential out of their games, aside from HoI, but the sequel for HoI is probably not in development yet.