r/paradoxplaza

Hello. I'm planning to upgrade my CPU and have narrowed down my choices between a Ryzen 7 9800X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D, since I've seen people here recommend against getting a 9950 due to power and heat increase.

To my understanding, the CPU cache size is very important in paradox games, and the difference between these two is as such:

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D - 96 MB

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D - 128 MB

While both have the same TDP.

The 9900 has more cores but as far as paradox games go, I'm told that's irrelevant, and when I watched benchmark videos on other games, the fps difference is minimal, and not worth the price hike IMO, so I'm only concerned about how well they'll run paradox titles.

I'm no tech whizz. Is the cache difference substantial for performance?

Looking to get more into grand strategy games, i already got TW warhammer 3 + 3 dlcs .

But i want to try one of the others as they seem different and like they could challah me in other ways.

But I have no experience with games like this, where is a good place to start?

I am also a history nerd and im fascinated by space, so i figured thematically, these would fit pretty well!

Is one better than the other for beginners?

Is there better?

Which would you choose?

This is not exactly a post about hoi5 or something.

This other day I was thinking about new historical periods/events paradox could try in new games, and I asked myself, could a WWI GS really work?

When i think of it obviously the first idea is hoi4, but I don't think that formula actually works here, first because WW II was more of a ideologic and mobile war, while WW I was more of a political and economic war, mostly because it was a attrition conflict, so i believe it would need more political interaction and maybe a economic depth. Not necessarily like vic3 but you know what i mean.

But at the same time I question myself if the national focuses would really help, since I believe they could stuck the game in a repetitive way, so maybe a more flexible approach.

Also I think if the game actually tries to reach WWII it would have to be a "slower" game where a period of about 50 years can last longer than hoi4, so it wouldn't happen to have different countries with a tech gap too big, which also means there should be a bigger or slower tech tree.

And last, I believe a WWI game shouldn't really worry about WWII, because it wouldn't allow you to play as you want, since it would be tied to certain developments to forcibly cause WWII.

Basically the title. If there are any, what aspects of those games will help me better get a grasp of EU5. Whether it's exactly the same or similar. Anything helps.

Hi everyone. I'm planning to play a mega-campaign with two friends, but I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. My question is: how can I make CK3 more engaging without creating blobs? I'd like to have something to do in every game, but I'm afraid that by the time the European phase rolls around, the world will be divided between the three of us. Do you have any ideas or experiences with this?

so recently I saw a sponsorship for Imperator Rome on Kings and Generals video (shout ou the goats, genuinely peak) and it looked interesting. and I am about to receive my sisters old laptop, so it seemed like the perfect game to download. However, I have also seen Rome 2 Total war get praised as one of the best Rome/antiquity era video games. I played the first Rome total war about a year ago and enjoyed it. so I wanted to ask those who have either played or know the game to tell me. is Imperator Rome worth playing, and if so is it better than Rome 2?

I would obviously love to play on it but it seems like it would be a great way to trash my monitor playing a pdx game for an ungodly amount of time

I have tried to look through the recent reviews but the complaints don't seem fundamentally different from the usual ones for paradox games, there is just more of them

I know this topic is incredibly cliché, but I genuinely want to get into these games so bad. I bought both games + DLC subscriptions, but I feel like getting into them is so daunting.

Like, I want to play, but I am afraid I'm gonna get stuck. I've played around 10 hours of HoI4 and only around 2 hours of Stellaris, and I understand some things, but it feels like I hit a brick wall after a while.

I have watched a few tutorials, but I feel like every time I play, I end up playing identically to them, rather than playing for myself.

I guess I would like to ask for advice on how to get into these games. I can probably brute force it until I know the mechanics, but I'd like to know if there's another way to play.

I jave previously enjoyed ck3 and hoi4, as well as eu4. Is it a good idea to buy it?

Paradox seems to be failing as a company.

Their recent games have been huge failures,their Dlc's have been huge failures (mostly negative on steam)

And their stock is sitting at a all time low.

I was thinking of investing in it before because I'm a massive Eu4/ stellaris /ck2 fan but if I did I would be down tens of thousands.

Mainly because their new stuff is so below average that investors and players seem to have lost interest.

Do you think pdx should restructure itself and possibly retire Johan to a sunny Spanish beach.

Games like Ck2 which were strategic and Rp masterpieces have been reduced to Sims -lite Ck3 event spam nightmares .

Eu5 failed.

Imperator failed.

Vampire the something something failed.

Millenia failed and so on.

i want to do a paradox mega campain however all i own is crusader king stellaris (all dlc) and hearts of iron (all dlc) i really like that people can convert their saves from one game to another so what are my option (i can buy at most one game or maybe 2 if they are cheap somewhere). If any paradox expert can help me its cool

After the previous post of mine and some reading I decided to buy Eu4 as it is the best for my system and it looks like Eu5 is still some time off.

My question is do I need any DLC or something to make it playable or does the base game have enough to be playable without making it annoying or stupid.

Also on a side note I plan to get Vic3 if I end up with enough so must have DLCs for that would be great.

​

I noticed this a while ago, but it really clicked in place while I was playing Victoria 3 this morning.

Over the course of history, throughout the games, the concept of "warfare" changes to become more restrictive and less of a "be all, end all" solution.

In CK3, warfare is "do what you want, no one really cares." You can wage 20 wars at once and take the entirety of Europe in one go and none is your neighbors particularly care.

In EU4, which picks up at the end of CK3, warfare becomes slightly less consequence-free. You can still mostly do whatever you want, but if you go too far too fast, you end up internally overextended and externally hated and feared due to AE. Coalitions are mostly useless, but there's a risk of neighbors intervening.

In Vic3, warfare is a pretty rare occurrence. Wars aren't as simple as "I declare war, let's go 1v1," they become entire diplomatic incidents, and you no longer need alliances or treaties to intervene. For example, I (New Granada) declared war on Bolivia to liberate Peru. Argentina, Chile, and Venezuela all sided with me and Bolivia backed down with no war at all.

HOI4 is a little different, as it's fundamentally a war game, but Warfare is still much more restricted. If you want to take over African countries, no one cares, but if you try to declare war on any major power, it's basically guaranteed to start a world war. The only permissible warfare is that of "those people don't matter, you can have them."

It makes sense, both historically and in terms of the evolving nature of international diplomacy, but I still think it's a very interesting evolution of warfare.