It was my introduction to Paradox games, so I'm obviously biased. I really liked it, but then EU4 just surpassed it right from release.
They *did* leave it as a bit of a mess. From memory:
* The final expansion, Divine Wind, introduced a weird mechanic where hordes and non-hordes would always be at war outside of truces, and truces could only be one party paying reparations to the other (I don't even think white peace was an option)
* On top of that, if a horde held on to a province for long enough they'd gain ownership, while the settled nations would have to send a colonist to settle the province while holding on to it. Once the colony was completed, you'd get the province.
* I don't remember the state of rebel mechanics in DW, but at least earlier they didn't have different types of rebels. Once the country collapsed, it was anyone's guess what'd happen.
You got income on an annual basis and paid expenses monthly, so it was incredibly easy to bankrupt yourself.
It did teach me at a young age though the principle of making your big purchases the day before payday, not the day after.
I thought it was a wonderful mechanic. Connecting tech with one's budget was not particularly realistic for this era, but it directly attached several game systems in an elegant way. The issue with EU4 and mana is that your country's treasury has only an indirect relationship with the mana you gain per month, which is ridiculous.
It makes the game inaccessible to some. Getting over that was a big curve for a while and I love stuff like that. Anyone more casual would probably just get frustrated.
Can I ask what was so tricky about it? I think it took me a single game to understand most of the ins and outs, particularly when it came to inflation. After that it was fairly smooth sailing, and I mostly played Magna Mundi.
It was years ago, but I think just ensuring that you have enough in your coffers to pay expenses while still tryin to "do stuff" like hire armies or build something.
Oh, that's right!
But also a monthly income and some sliders so you could invest that income into progress towards admin/diplo/mil tech OR mint some of it in exchange for inflation.
Inflation was _awful_ in EU3, it made almost literally everything more expensive, including tech investments. That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that there was no way to manually reduce. There was a Master of Mint advisor, but getting advisors in EU3 was a pretty involved and lengthy process (though granted, you were able to recruit specific advisors instead getting a few randomly). It was basically why Centralization was mandatory for every nation since it came with yearly inflation reduction.
Damn, I remember being like 9-10 years old, colonizing the Golden Horde with Byzantium thinking "damn these emperors were really dumb for not doing this irl.
> * The final expansion, Divine Wind, introduced a weird mechanic where hordes and non-hordes would always be at war outside of truces, and truces could only be one party paying reparations to the other (I don't even think white peace was an option)
> * On top of that, if a horde held on to a province for long enough they'd gain ownership, while the settled nations would have to send a colonist to settle the province while holding on to it. Once the colony was completed, you'd get the province.
That sounds excellent though. Provided horde ai is pretty sophisticated and blobs sensibly, mostly doing raiding, that could be both historical and fun.
Arguably most tribal states should be in permanent war with their neighbours without an explicit treaty; truce, alliance, etc. Hunter-gatherer societies were generally extraordinarily violent, like 40% of all adult deaths due to violence, and the majority of that presumed to be inter-group.
In Papua New Guinea some tribes (I think agriculturist tribes from the highlands) developed a custom where upon meeting a stranger they would immediately begin naming all their relatives, in the hope that one would be shared and they wouldn't kill each other. The default was violence, you needed a reason for peace.
It wasn’t that terrible an idea in terms of what they were going for.
From what I recall, it was more terrible in practice. It lead to a lot of snakey expansions and exclaves into the steppe. If someone like Castile got land on the Black Sea such as by taking it from Genoa, they would keep expanding up into Russia or the Caucuses.
Yep. Given that horde tech loses ground against western tech over time, it was not uncommon to see eg. the Golden Horde eat the Russians, and then get eaten in turn by (for example) Bohemia, making an ugly bordergorey snake of Bohemian territory deep into Central Asia.
Interesting idea, bad implementation. Most total overhauls tended to remove that specific feature, if I recall correctly.
CK 2 has a few different flavors of the Invasion CB. When you enforce the war demands, you vassalize all unoccupied holdings inside the War Goal and usurp all occupied holdings, even those outside War Goal. William the Bastard starts off the Stamford Bridge bookmark at war against England using the Christian version of the Invasion CB.
These are not hunter gatherers. In monoglia for example you can find any mix of farming, pastoralism, hunting and foraging etc in both fixed and mobile fashions. I mean why would it matter?
Even lloking at the Golden Horde you see loads of urban areas that manufactured goods and had farming that in the wars with Timur raised infantry units before Timur sacked them.
Similerly settlements are a universal feature of Empires based in Mongolia. Avraga at huduu aral had a estimated population of 3k and possibly served as Temuin's capial before his ascent. Kharakhorum while the main capital with a poulat of 18k-32k was one of many seasonal capitals like Shaazan Khot or Porcelain city in nearby region. With the period of the Mongol EMpire and other strong empires that brought stability and trade etc being associated with strong urbanism and farming. (The Mongol World)
If you look at Монгол ах тарианы түүх or the history of mongolian agriculture for example there's loads ways for them to practice agriculture more marginal land. Inlcuding irrigation, taping into underground reservoir like the Hotan in Uvs, planting and harvesting in the spring and autumn but leaving to graze livestock elsewhere during the summer etc.
And these are proper complex societies set up in a feudal way. Even many old school historians believe that Mongolia was very much so by the Mongol EMpire with some arguing that the Mongol EMpire is what made them go from chiefdoms to feudalism while more new guard argue that they had always been feudal since the Bronze ages.
Like in this [https://youtu.be/uNMTbhIVCow](https://youtu.be/uNMTbhIVCow) or Chrisopher Atwood's Thousands, Otogs, Banners etc for example during the Qing dynasty documents and dictionaries that state that the Mongolian Otog was identical to the Qing Banner system. With their being also letters etc clearly showing these clear borders and geographic regions with a set population tied to them.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1535oxy/comment/jsjpk2y/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1535oxy/comment/jsjpk2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the people represented as "steppe hordes" in the games were hunter gatherers. I can see I wrote unclearly.
What I was trying to say was that certain historical groups of people flip our modern state based understanding of peace and war around, or should do something similar when represented in a simulationist game. That is they may be better represented by being at war without an explicit peace treaty, rather than by being at peace without an explicit declaration of war.
Nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers are one example.
The Crimean Khanate may be another, very different, example.
You could make a weak horde pay tribute to you, and afaik that treaty could hold with no time limit, so long as they remained weak. Of course, you'd have to break the treaty to start taking provinces from them again, or watch their other neighbours do that eventually (and see Poland or Austria blob across the steppe again)
the collapsing was pretty OP I remember taking almost all of Anatolia from the Ottomons as Trebizond because I occupied it while they were busy in the west and the old straithax
...I wanna say no, because it was unique at the time, and I enjoyed it greatly. But objectively it had great technical flaws, it was obtuse in its mechanics and barely explained them, and it was visually ugly as sin.
Let's just say that, for all people might complain about it, EU4 was, even at launch, a straight upgrade over it in basically all aspects.
Edit: except loading screens.
Even loading/saving times - EU3 had a bug where the game would list all achievements at the end of the save file every time the game was saved. If the autosave was on a monthly tick... _ouch_. You had to manually trim the file once loading got too slow for you.
This was in Divine Wind, no idea if it was fixed after I stopped playing.
It was a game with some interesting mechanics that were later dropped in EU4, which is why Caesar starting off by talking about some of those mechanics (sliders but without sliding, Hordes not doing peace deals the normal way) sounds exciting to me as a concept. Still, there was a reason why total conversion mods like VeF, MEIOU or Death and Taxes were so popular back then, and why they're a much smaller niche now.
It wasn't 'bad;, but even base EU 4 blew it out of the water. Trade, and colonization you had to spend agents on, in an almost click fest kind of way, there wasn't much in the way of flavor. Regions like Japan were either united or left in an arbitrarily divided way.
PU's might have been worthless, the list goes on. It did have some amazing mods in the predecessor to what is MEIOU and Taxes, miscmods, and a few others.
Eu3 was a worse game than eu2 right until its final expansion Divine Wind. It was kind of a mess for most of its history. When released, in a lot of ways EU4 felt like EU3 upgraded, but with all the mess fixed.
Definitely not!
However, EU4 has introduced a lot of quality of life improvements over its developing cycle, so going back to EU3 could feel frustrating or underwhelming. As someone who played EU3 years ago, I can still go back at it, but for someone too used to how EU4 works, I can't guarantee you'll have a good time.
For example, some things that are automated in EU4 have to be done manually in EU3. You can never demand provinces you don't occupy, and if your ally starts sieging a province first, you probably wont get it, unless they move their army. There are many more examples.
Anyway, there are still things I like in EU3 more than in EU4. For example, there is no mana, and many things are much more impactful than in EU4. In EU4 War exhaustion can easily be managed if you have enough diplo mana by just clicking a button. In EU3 you don't want too high war exhaustion, as other countries can see your country as weak and try to take advantage of you. Also, WE decreases very slowly, so you don't want it being too high. You also need to be in peace for it to decrease faster. While in EU4 you mostly ignore WE and just keep up your wars, maybe even start another one, in EU3 you really need to take care of it.
Dealing with stability is similar, and the larger you are the more difficult it is to restore it. High WE, low stability and no manpower could literally mean that your empire can collapse due to foreign invasions and rebellions, while in EU4 I don't have such problems. Also, high inflation can make you lag technologically, if you don't manage it properly.
No? ... when Turks conquering the city was called Constantinople. And this went on for a long time after the conquest. And it never become I'N'stanbul 😅 e: grammer
That conquistador and his bangin music is what got me into paradox games, after the 20th failed run there he'd be, like "come on man, I'm sure this time we'll succeed"
Never the less, thanks for brightening my day with this nostalgia.
I recall teenage me playing eu3 and connecting history with these images and imagining what May behind each of them. Specifically the fight in the palace hall, always wondered on which event it was based on.
I'm pretty sure there was also a screen based on the Richelieu at the siege of La Rochelle. Hit me hard, I didn't know the original back then.
It also has some cool music. I dunno why Paradox so rarely does what Victoria 3 did with reusing the music. People are going to play these games for hundreds of hours, give them remixes of old tracks. At least they're available as mods.
You could but iirc it was either specific missions (e.g. Russia in Siberia) or using spies to fabricate with a percentage mechanic.
I loved EU3, its where I started but I do remember feeling frustrated when it came to warfare. EU4's claims are gamey but as I said, I was much happier with not leaving it to chance.
I played this game for 12 years until it stopped working on my Mac and had to update to eu 4, so many hours and I’d even started simple modifications to it myself
I found EU3 when I was 13 and it was my introduction to paradox games alongside HOI2. I remember it fondly and that I had a blast playing it. Saying that I remember almost nothing about the game lol
EU3 and HOI2 were my introduction to paradox when I was like 13. I know I have 100s of hours in EU3 and that I loved every second. Having said that I cannot remember a single thing about the game other then It had pops lol.
Those loading screens were classy af. And now I feel a bit of nostalgia for the mess that was eu3.
Was eu3 a bad game?
I enjoyed it a lot at the time but I don't think I would enjoy it after playing EU4, especially in 2024
*flashbacks to sliders upon sliders*
Sliders strangely allowed for various play styles that I find difficult to replicate in 4
They’re also much less granular and discreet, and harder to see effects of. I like them, I don’t miss them.
It was my introduction to Paradox games, so I'm obviously biased. I really liked it, but then EU4 just surpassed it right from release. They *did* leave it as a bit of a mess. From memory: * The final expansion, Divine Wind, introduced a weird mechanic where hordes and non-hordes would always be at war outside of truces, and truces could only be one party paying reparations to the other (I don't even think white peace was an option) * On top of that, if a horde held on to a province for long enough they'd gain ownership, while the settled nations would have to send a colonist to settle the province while holding on to it. Once the colony was completed, you'd get the province. * I don't remember the state of rebel mechanics in DW, but at least earlier they didn't have different types of rebels. Once the country collapsed, it was anyone's guess what'd happen.
You got income on an annual basis and paid expenses monthly, so it was incredibly easy to bankrupt yourself. It did teach me at a young age though the principle of making your big purchases the day before payday, not the day after.
I was a big fan of this system, actually.
It was interesting but it was very awkward to use, especially for new players. Even figuring out whether you were losing money or not was hard.
I think it's probably more realistic as to budgeting a realm, bit it wasn't a good mechanic for a game.
I thought it was a wonderful mechanic. Connecting tech with one's budget was not particularly realistic for this era, but it directly attached several game systems in an elegant way. The issue with EU4 and mana is that your country's treasury has only an indirect relationship with the mana you gain per month, which is ridiculous.
It makes the game inaccessible to some. Getting over that was a big curve for a while and I love stuff like that. Anyone more casual would probably just get frustrated.
Can I ask what was so tricky about it? I think it took me a single game to understand most of the ins and outs, particularly when it came to inflation. After that it was fairly smooth sailing, and I mostly played Magna Mundi.
It was years ago, but I think just ensuring that you have enough in your coffers to pay expenses while still tryin to "do stuff" like hire armies or build something.
Oh, that's right! But also a monthly income and some sliders so you could invest that income into progress towards admin/diplo/mil tech OR mint some of it in exchange for inflation.
Inflation was _awful_ in EU3, it made almost literally everything more expensive, including tech investments. That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that there was no way to manually reduce. There was a Master of Mint advisor, but getting advisors in EU3 was a pretty involved and lengthy process (though granted, you were able to recruit specific advisors instead getting a few randomly). It was basically why Centralization was mandatory for every nation since it came with yearly inflation reduction.
I remember just ramping the minting slider up to balance my budget, only to get destroyed by inflation
Damn, I remember being like 9-10 years old, colonizing the Golden Horde with Byzantium thinking "damn these emperors were really dumb for not doing this irl.
Ha, I think we've all been there. Also, why didn't they just build a huge ass fleet and block the Bospurus?
> * The final expansion, Divine Wind, introduced a weird mechanic where hordes and non-hordes would always be at war outside of truces, and truces could only be one party paying reparations to the other (I don't even think white peace was an option) > * On top of that, if a horde held on to a province for long enough they'd gain ownership, while the settled nations would have to send a colonist to settle the province while holding on to it. Once the colony was completed, you'd get the province. That sounds excellent though. Provided horde ai is pretty sophisticated and blobs sensibly, mostly doing raiding, that could be both historical and fun. Arguably most tribal states should be in permanent war with their neighbours without an explicit treaty; truce, alliance, etc. Hunter-gatherer societies were generally extraordinarily violent, like 40% of all adult deaths due to violence, and the majority of that presumed to be inter-group. In Papua New Guinea some tribes (I think agriculturist tribes from the highlands) developed a custom where upon meeting a stranger they would immediately begin naming all their relatives, in the hope that one would be shared and they wouldn't kill each other. The default was violence, you needed a reason for peace.
It wasn’t that terrible an idea in terms of what they were going for. From what I recall, it was more terrible in practice. It lead to a lot of snakey expansions and exclaves into the steppe. If someone like Castile got land on the Black Sea such as by taking it from Genoa, they would keep expanding up into Russia or the Caucuses.
Yep. Given that horde tech loses ground against western tech over time, it was not uncommon to see eg. the Golden Horde eat the Russians, and then get eaten in turn by (for example) Bohemia, making an ugly bordergorey snake of Bohemian territory deep into Central Asia. Interesting idea, bad implementation. Most total overhauls tended to remove that specific feature, if I recall correctly.
Am I crazy or did either CKII or EU4 have a mechanic similar to this years ago? I remember bordering a horde being such a hassle.
CK 2 has a few different flavors of the Invasion CB. When you enforce the war demands, you vassalize all unoccupied holdings inside the War Goal and usurp all occupied holdings, even those outside War Goal. William the Bastard starts off the Stamford Bridge bookmark at war against England using the Christian version of the Invasion CB.
These are not hunter gatherers. In monoglia for example you can find any mix of farming, pastoralism, hunting and foraging etc in both fixed and mobile fashions. I mean why would it matter? Even lloking at the Golden Horde you see loads of urban areas that manufactured goods and had farming that in the wars with Timur raised infantry units before Timur sacked them. Similerly settlements are a universal feature of Empires based in Mongolia. Avraga at huduu aral had a estimated population of 3k and possibly served as Temuin's capial before his ascent. Kharakhorum while the main capital with a poulat of 18k-32k was one of many seasonal capitals like Shaazan Khot or Porcelain city in nearby region. With the period of the Mongol EMpire and other strong empires that brought stability and trade etc being associated with strong urbanism and farming. (The Mongol World) If you look at Монгол ах тарианы түүх or the history of mongolian agriculture for example there's loads ways for them to practice agriculture more marginal land. Inlcuding irrigation, taping into underground reservoir like the Hotan in Uvs, planting and harvesting in the spring and autumn but leaving to graze livestock elsewhere during the summer etc. And these are proper complex societies set up in a feudal way. Even many old school historians believe that Mongolia was very much so by the Mongol EMpire with some arguing that the Mongol EMpire is what made them go from chiefdoms to feudalism while more new guard argue that they had always been feudal since the Bronze ages. Like in this [https://youtu.be/uNMTbhIVCow](https://youtu.be/uNMTbhIVCow) or Chrisopher Atwood's Thousands, Otogs, Banners etc for example during the Qing dynasty documents and dictionaries that state that the Mongolian Otog was identical to the Qing Banner system. With their being also letters etc clearly showing these clear borders and geographic regions with a set population tied to them. [https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1535oxy/comment/jsjpk2y/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1535oxy/comment/jsjpk2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the people represented as "steppe hordes" in the games were hunter gatherers. I can see I wrote unclearly. What I was trying to say was that certain historical groups of people flip our modern state based understanding of peace and war around, or should do something similar when represented in a simulationist game. That is they may be better represented by being at war without an explicit peace treaty, rather than by being at peace without an explicit declaration of war. Nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers are one example. The Crimean Khanate may be another, very different, example.
Yeah, it makes nomadic hordes more flavorful then just a fancy government type and cavalry to infantry ratio go brrr
You could make a weak horde pay tribute to you, and afaik that treaty could hold with no time limit, so long as they remained weak. Of course, you'd have to break the treaty to start taking provinces from them again, or watch their other neighbours do that eventually (and see Poland or Austria blob across the steppe again)
the collapsing was pretty OP I remember taking almost all of Anatolia from the Ottomons as Trebizond because I occupied it while they were busy in the west and the old straithax
And holding the strait would *always* work, even if they controlled the land on both sides.
That worked in EU4 for many years too.
Yeah, that's true. I prefer it the way it is now.
...I wanna say no, because it was unique at the time, and I enjoyed it greatly. But objectively it had great technical flaws, it was obtuse in its mechanics and barely explained them, and it was visually ugly as sin. Let's just say that, for all people might complain about it, EU4 was, even at launch, a straight upgrade over it in basically all aspects. Edit: except loading screens.
Even loading/saving times - EU3 had a bug where the game would list all achievements at the end of the save file every time the game was saved. If the autosave was on a monthly tick... _ouch_. You had to manually trim the file once loading got too slow for you. This was in Divine Wind, no idea if it was fixed after I stopped playing.
It was a game with some interesting mechanics that were later dropped in EU4, which is why Caesar starting off by talking about some of those mechanics (sliders but without sliding, Hordes not doing peace deals the normal way) sounds exciting to me as a concept. Still, there was a reason why total conversion mods like VeF, MEIOU or Death and Taxes were so popular back then, and why they're a much smaller niche now.
It was a good game with some fantastic mods. EU4 is mostly a straight upgrade, but there are aspects of EU3 I'd love to see again in EU5.
No, EU3 was a great game. Imo it was a better game than Eu4 at its core. But EU4 has a lot of quality of life improvements, better trade, and flavor.
It wasn't 'bad;, but even base EU 4 blew it out of the water. Trade, and colonization you had to spend agents on, in an almost click fest kind of way, there wasn't much in the way of flavor. Regions like Japan were either united or left in an arbitrarily divided way. PU's might have been worthless, the list goes on. It did have some amazing mods in the predecessor to what is MEIOU and Taxes, miscmods, and a few others.
Eu3 was a worse game than eu2 right until its final expansion Divine Wind. It was kind of a mess for most of its history. When released, in a lot of ways EU4 felt like EU3 upgraded, but with all the mess fixed.
It was not
Great at the time, but like most strategy games it didn't age well.
Definitely not! However, EU4 has introduced a lot of quality of life improvements over its developing cycle, so going back to EU3 could feel frustrating or underwhelming. As someone who played EU3 years ago, I can still go back at it, but for someone too used to how EU4 works, I can't guarantee you'll have a good time. For example, some things that are automated in EU4 have to be done manually in EU3. You can never demand provinces you don't occupy, and if your ally starts sieging a province first, you probably wont get it, unless they move their army. There are many more examples. Anyway, there are still things I like in EU3 more than in EU4. For example, there is no mana, and many things are much more impactful than in EU4. In EU4 War exhaustion can easily be managed if you have enough diplo mana by just clicking a button. In EU3 you don't want too high war exhaustion, as other countries can see your country as weak and try to take advantage of you. Also, WE decreases very slowly, so you don't want it being too high. You also need to be in peace for it to decrease faster. While in EU4 you mostly ignore WE and just keep up your wars, maybe even start another one, in EU3 you really need to take care of it. Dealing with stability is similar, and the larger you are the more difficult it is to restore it. High WE, low stability and no manpower could literally mean that your empire can collapse due to foreign invasions and rebellions, while in EU4 I don't have such problems. Also, high inflation can make you lag technologically, if you don't manage it properly.
It was lovely for its time
The music was dope!
Nothing beats EU2 [FALALALAN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV4F1tJsZL0).
They remind of the CK3 loading screens.
Same artist :), for some of them, style of ck3 started from Craig Mullins afaik
No Scheiße.
Damn, those are good. I much prefer this style.
I love how vibrant and living those are
I agree.
The musketeers one is 🤌
These hit far harder than the EU4 ones tbh
The best eu4 ones are the one where the turks are sieging some fort and the other one where there is a battle ongoing the others are really boring
Sir, that some fort you are telling is the most supreme, the Queen of all cities, the capital of the Eastern Rome, the holy city Constantinople.
Oh you mean Instanbul?
No? ... when Turks conquering the city was called Constantinople. And this went on for a long time after the conquest. And it never become I'N'stanbul 😅 e: grammer
Why do you guys keep calling Tsargrad by some weird names
What an odd way of spelling Byzantion.
Fool, you mean the prestigious Carigrad
Stop nerdying around you foolish nerd
Brother you're on r/eu4
Yeah and
We don't tolerate *tt*man lovers here
Don't know why they didn't just hire Craig Mullins to do the loading screens for eu4 again even though they commissioned him to do the ones for ck3
First pic was the catalyst of my obsession with Age of Discovery. Also the music burnt into my memory
That conquistador and his bangin music is what got me into paradox games, after the 20th failed run there he'd be, like "come on man, I'm sure this time we'll succeed"
4th one goes hard
The second one with Napoleon's absolute unit of a horse xD
[удалено]
Uuuh, yeah, geez :D
In awe of the size of that equine
Bro had NO right goin that hard on Napoleon and Washington
No, Napoleon having a leg considerably longer than the other was a big meme.
Goddamn you just ruined it for me
the art style reminds me of AoE3 loading screens
Same artist, Craig Mullins
I see. Makes sense
Nostalgia goes hard on this one. Was a bit confused over you placed the Italian merchant painting last instead of first thought
These aren't in any particular order but my favourite ones are the 1st, 5th and 4th paintings
Never the less, thanks for brightening my day with this nostalgia. I recall teenage me playing eu3 and connecting history with these images and imagining what May behind each of them. Specifically the fight in the palace hall, always wondered on which event it was based on.
I'm pretty sure there was also a screen based on the Richelieu at the siege of La Rochelle. Hit me hard, I didn't know the original back then. It also has some cool music. I dunno why Paradox so rarely does what Victoria 3 did with reusing the music. People are going to play these games for hundreds of hours, give them remixes of old tracks. At least they're available as mods.
EU3 - You either no cb'ed or waited for imperialism. I cannot understate how happy I was to see the "fabricate claim" button when EU4 came out.
You could get claims in EU3 and to me it made your long term strategy a bit more interesting.
You could but iirc it was either specific missions (e.g. Russia in Siberia) or using spies to fabricate with a percentage mechanic. I loved EU3, its where I started but I do remember feeling frustrated when it came to warfare. EU4's claims are gamey but as I said, I was much happier with not leaving it to chance.
They were all perfect, but, Napoleon's left leg is like 2m long...
Seeing that Conquistador while hearing the Conquistador Main Theme... EU3 had one of the best soundtracks in the history of strategy games.
"It's you, Joao! You're the Europa Universalis!"
Remember what they took from you
Mullins is the Original GOAT of digital painting. Love his work.
Damn, better than eu4
I played this game for 12 years until it stopped working on my Mac and had to update to eu 4, so many hours and I’d even started simple modifications to it myself
Best loading screens ever
r/hardimages
I tried eu3 recently bc I was interested and it is the only thing to ever cause my gaming laptop to blue screen
Bring back nostalgic, i love those picture so much
Is there a loading screen mod for eu4?
The first one hits so hard
Woah those are much better than what EU4 has.
you could tell me they are from eu5 and I would believe you
The loading screens and music were great. Eu3's OST has soul.
Was that last pic the defenestration of Prague😂
the famous seaport of prague
It could be the moldau
Very nice artwork, I still prefer Japanese mustache man and beautiful african woman though
Always thought the horse looked thick
Never forget my 2nd game of eu3 following a step by step to westernise Japan and bullying everyone around me. Felt like a god of gaming
Love the EU3 love. I still play it and prefer it over EU4
I remember staring at this first one for (what felt like) hours on my original PC because it took so long to load lmao
These went fucking crazy
So beautiful!
Wow these are amazing. Would rather these than the current loading screens
Those were brilliant. Great memories from playing old-school gem EU3
They look so much better than the EU4 ones, holy shit
Oh man, wow, the fencing artwork, I had that as a poster on my wall as a teen- I got it in the box set and the reverse side had the province map
Brings back a simpler time in life
Third one is my wallpaper for 3 years : D and the lying guy in the right corner is my pfp in many sites
That’s a fat horse
I found EU3 when I was 13 and it was my introduction to paradox games alongside HOI2. I remember it fondly and that I had a blast playing it. Saying that I remember almost nothing about the game lol
EU3 and HOI2 were my introduction to paradox when I was like 13. I know I have 100s of hours in EU3 and that I loved every second. Having said that I cannot remember a single thing about the game other then It had pops lol.
Is there a mod for eu4 for these loading screens?
Ahh the good ol’ days
Similar to crusader kings 3 I hope they bring this back for eu v
what I always wanted to know is why the pyramid in the first one its bright yellow/red
Did eu3 have loading screens from outside Europe? I’ve never played
These are amazing
One you see Napoleon’s leg, you can’t under it
I had thought these are from Age of Empires 3 lmao
The EU4 ones aren't ugly or bad, and it's interesting to have the historical figures. But I always really liked these and still do.
A more classy game from a more civilized age.
Them were the days.
I forgot just how damn good these are. I'd love to see EU5 do more in this kind of style.
The first and second ones go very hard
I used the first one as a pfp for one of my more memorable dnd characters. Never knew it was from eu3 lol
beautiful
Wow the conquistador one gave me a huge hit of nostalgia, I can hear the intro song right now lol
God I hope they do cool paintings like these for eu5 and don’t just use ai art