Which Paradox game is the easiest to learn?

[baekgom84]

I'm not asking because I'm looking for advice about which one to pick up, but rather to see if there's a general consensus or whether opinions are divided. For me, I found Crusader Kings II to be far more intuitive than either EU3 or HoI3 (I still haven't been able to crack either game, although I think if I gave EU3 another shot I might get it), due to the reduced economic complexity, and also perhaps because I was more easily able to relate to playing as an actual, literal ruler than as a sort of abstract, omniscient one. I assumed this would be the case for everyone, but I've seen forum posts in which people say that EU3 or HoI3 was their natural entry point to Paradox games, and that they found Crusader Kings II baffling.

So I'm wondering which Paradox game you found the easiest to get into, and whether or not you think that says something about your personality. I can definitely say that I'm not really a fan of number-crunching, which is why the focus on political intrigue in CK2 appeals to me a lot more than fine-tuning taxation sliders or re-assigning division commanders. But maybe there are people who feel a little bit lost when there is no clear mathematically-optimal path to success?

[Orv]

EU3 and CK2 are tied for easiest to learn, but are entirely different kinds of games.

If managing your income, trade and a somewhat abstract diplomatic system doesn't interested you, but you've mentioned that intrigue and characters do, hit up CK2.

Has RDA really gone that to pot?

[Gormongous]

It's a dead heat between Europa Universalis III, which is most relatable in terms of abstract strategy game concepts, and Crusader Kings II, which is most relatable in terms of affective RPG concepts. If made to choose, I'd probably give preference to the latter, if only because of Paradox's increasing skill at interface design and the extent to which RPG mechanics have infected so many other genres. We'll see how Europa Universalis IV shifts that balance, especially since it sounds like it's incorporating a few CK2 mechanics itself.

[brkl]

Definitely the latter unless you like to worry about inflation over six centuries.

[baekgom84]

It definitely seems like most people would recommend Crusader Kings II as the entry point to Paradox grand strategy games, but I'm wondering if this is reflective of your personal experience - i.e. did you have an easier or harder time grasping the core mechanics of EU3, HoI3, or CK2? I have actually read forum posts where people said they found HoI3 the easiest of the three games to grasp, which I found somewhat bewildering as it seems so much more dense than the other two games. But then maybe the same sort of people who love tweaking unit statistics feel a bit lost when asked if they want to indulge in a statistically-meaningless love affair with one of their courtiers?

[Orv]

Victoria is the only Paradox game I can't grok. It's just too dull. I love EU3, CK2 (and 1) and Rome equally, I'm a little less of a fan of HoI but still play them. The thing I learned the fastest was probably EU3.

Yes, I like Rome. I know that makes me a bad person.

[Nikolaj]

Apart from the old pre-EU games, I'd say that Rome and Sengoku are the easiest to learn. They're what I consider "filler" games, released between more prominent Paradox games, and they have fewer mechanics to learn and keep track of. Neither is particularly good, though, in my opinion.