Europa Universalis IV

 PC
User Score
8.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1463 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,250 out of 1463
  2. Mixed: 115 out of 1463
  3. Negative: 98 out of 1463

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Hiro016
    Sep 2, 2023
    1
    SAPORRA LANÇOU A 10 ANOS ATRÁS E AINDA FAZEM DLCS,FAÇAM UMA CONTINUAÇÃO LOGO ENTÃO PORRRR
  2. TheTruthFromTed
    Jun 19, 2023
    4
    The game itself is actually quite good, I just can't recommend this game because the poor excuses of devs have locked a cr*p load of essential features behind several paywalls which makes around half the factions and thus game unplayable. if your willing to invest triple the amound of the base game on dlc's go ahead. Otherwise don't bother.
  3. Crimson9
    Dec 21, 2022
    4
    Probably the worst of the main Paradox games. This is basically a map painter. As a game it does have some tactical considerations and is more complex than risk, but not nearly as much as a game like HOI4. As a simulator it is total nonsense.
  4. Jyadaus
    Dec 14, 2022
    0
    fix the sieges. they took mountain level 2 fort at %14 and i took grassland level 1 fort at %35. this is **** stupid.

    i forgot to mention the stupidty of ai. **** idiots
  5. dainii
    Oct 5, 2021
    1
    The game could be fun but it's unstable and it runs with shutter at x1920 64gb ram and 3080. It's hilarious but after it crashed my pc for the second time I stopped laughing. The gameplay is tottaly random, meh.
  6. Voyou
    May 25, 2021
    0
    Game is text-heavy, as you would expect. Yet game doesn't offer any means to increase text size until it becomes readable. That basic failure requires so low an intelligence that you would wonder why the game maker even tried to make a strategy game. Anyway, it cannot physically be played, so the intrinsic value of the software is simply zero.
  7. dlcatalin
    Jan 17, 2021
    3
    Im going to give it a 3 ! It got everything right ... it's a diamond of a game. BUT ... BUUUUT ... it's 0 fun because they spent ZERO EFFORT into making it fair and challenging. What happens is you lose your manpower in like 3 lost fights while the enemy magically has INFINITE pool of soldiers and INFINITE money. So even if you occupy ALL their provinces and SCORCH EARTH all of them andIm going to give it a 3 ! It got everything right ... it's a diamond of a game. BUT ... BUUUUT ... it's 0 fun because they spent ZERO EFFORT into making it fair and challenging. What happens is you lose your manpower in like 3 lost fights while the enemy magically has INFINITE pool of soldiers and INFINITE money. So even if you occupy ALL their provinces and SCORCH EARTH all of them and DEFEAT their armies in ONE MILLION BATTLES, they still spawn back to 100% health in a few days. Not to mention that if you have for example 10 provinces you can make a 10 unit army while the enemy can make like a 30 unit army for the same ammount of provinces with same development and everything. Its just a big unfair pile of %^& to give you the illusion of a challenge.… Expand
  8. xxBat
    Jun 29, 2020
    0
    I'm gonna start off with saying that this game (without taking the DLC policy into account) is a masterpiece! It's a bunch of fun with friends, but make sure that you play with people that don't get too mad at you for betraying them, because the multiplayer side of the game is the most fun I've ever had in a game. It includes everything you need for a truly fun and immersive grand strategyI'm gonna start off with saying that this game (without taking the DLC policy into account) is a masterpiece! It's a bunch of fun with friends, but make sure that you play with people that don't get too mad at you for betraying them, because the multiplayer side of the game is the most fun I've ever had in a game. It includes everything you need for a truly fun and immersive grand strategy experience. The main downside of the game is the DLC policy which truly is a stain on this game's legacy, as of now it costs you hundreds of euro/dollars to get all the DLC without a sale, which I would strongly advise against, personally, I got all the DLC on Humble Bundle, you should wait for a sale and then buy the game with the DLC. Or you can buy the game, then see if you enjoy it and if yes, come back when there's a sale and buy the DLC. But the upside is that if you have a friend/host who has all DLC, for the duration of the multiplayer session, all of the host's DLC will be activated for all players. I would heavily advise any Grand Strategy/History enthusiast looking for a fun game, spanning from 1444 to 1821 to choose Europa Universalis IV!… Expand
  9. Dickm4n
    Jun 9, 2020
    0
    The unbalanced countries / dynasties make multiplayer impossible. The graphic is just below average. Didn't feel entertained while playing, nor was I educated in history.
  10. erdogfu96
    Feb 8, 2020
    3
    I like strategy games but it's easy is hard for me. This game need to be more playable. If you write there setting named easy, than make it easy. Menus are confusing. No story and gameplay is slow. There is no depth in strategy (plots etc) .
  11. Vim88pl
    Dec 16, 2018
    4
    I have decided to give this game negative review, because too many pieces which should have been in base game, are in DLC. Transforming your country into Empire, designating a March, increasing development, are few example, which in base game wondered how it can be done and checked online only to learn, that it is in DLC. And it is not one or two DLC, or some cheap DLC, but expensive DLCs.I have decided to give this game negative review, because too many pieces which should have been in base game, are in DLC. Transforming your country into Empire, designating a March, increasing development, are few example, which in base game wondered how it can be done and checked online only to learn, that it is in DLC. And it is not one or two DLC, or some cheap DLC, but expensive DLCs. Secondly, new updates regularly are ruining my saves… Expand
  12. proneisntsupine
    Nov 18, 2018
    4
    One of my most played games ever. I have over 2500 hours in this game, putting it behind only Diablo 2 as my second most played game of all time. However, I can not recommend the game in its current state. Each patch since 1.19 has felt incomplete, and has left the game feeling hollow and half built. The changes to the mission system and addition of government reforms seem to also indicateOne of my most played games ever. I have over 2500 hours in this game, putting it behind only Diablo 2 as my second most played game of all time. However, I can not recommend the game in its current state. Each patch since 1.19 has felt incomplete, and has left the game feeling hollow and half built. The changes to the mission system and addition of government reforms seem to also indicate a development trend towards shoveling out low effort DLC and slapping a $15 price tag on it while not addressing serious underlying issues with game mechanics (most notably naval combat and subject AI, both of which have been major requests of the community for years). At this point in the game's life span, it seems to be best to wait and hope for an EUV rather than invest the $200+ to get all the gameplay changing DLCs… Expand
  13. marcantoineg
    May 13, 2018
    3
    3 words : Paradox dlc whoring. As usual this game is empty without the numerous tiny dlcs paradox spews over the years.
  14. rowt
    Jun 16, 2017
    1
    4 years ago (when I bought it) this game was 100% worth it, kind of bland at some points and a little buggy but still lots of fun. Today, at the current prices, i can't justify dumping this amount of money on it (+DLCs, which the game feels bland and outright broken at parts without). It costs about the same as an AAA title from the past 2 years and it's just not in line with them, sorry4 years ago (when I bought it) this game was 100% worth it, kind of bland at some points and a little buggy but still lots of fun. Today, at the current prices, i can't justify dumping this amount of money on it (+DLCs, which the game feels bland and outright broken at parts without). It costs about the same as an AAA title from the past 2 years and it's just not in line with them, sorry Paradox but I'm not sorry… Expand
  15. elegioneer
    May 18, 2017
    3
    This game is the best strategy I ever played, but the problem is in Paradox: the simply broke the game in a $*%#ton of DLCs which cost half of a game itself.
  16. MikeB26
    Apr 27, 2017
    0
    Bought it. Wasn't able to start a Steam account. Was told to "try again later." Did this several times over 30 minutes. $39. Can't play. Rip off.
  17. jclaiborne2007
    Dec 15, 2015
    1
    There is only one way to play this game. Buy the base game and never ever update. This game has gone from good to horrible with every poorly conceived and ill executed expansion. All of the talent is gone to make a space game leaving 2 imbeciles to wreck this once great game. I would like to introduce these greedy sobs to a brand new concept: Quality Assurance.
  18. Ntek_sr
    Dec 7, 2015
    0
    I have played the game for about 1000 hour. After a update to create a "pay-wall", you have to buy a DLC to be able to develop your provinces. And you buy the development by "Monarc"-points that is the same for a large as a small country. Mighty empires will not develop.

    Other untested major changes they did (almost everything changed) destroyed the balance and alter the game into    I have played the game for about 1000 hour. After a update to create a "pay-wall", you have to buy a DLC to be able to develop your provinces. And you buy the development by "Monarc"-points that is the same for a large as a small country. Mighty empires will not develop.

    Other untested major changes they did (almost everything changed) destroyed the balance and alter the game into another game. A game that is bad.

    Sadly it seems that Paradox have begin to abuse DLC a lot... don't know if I can trust them any more.    … Expand
  19. Telembrium
    Dec 1, 2015
    4
    Europa Universalis 4 is a game that I want to like, but that I just cant due to a number of different issues. From a severe reliance on RNG to inconsistent AI competence, the game just irritates me whenever I try to play it to the point where I don't enjoy it. The large amount of DLC with features that have large effect on the base game don't help either.

    By far the worst problem with    Europa Universalis 4 is a game that I want to like, but that I just cant due to a number of different issues. From a severe reliance on RNG to inconsistent AI competence, the game just irritates me whenever I try to play it to the point where I don't enjoy it. The large amount of DLC with features that have large effect on the base game don't help either.

    By far the worst problem with the game is the AI. Like others have said, the multiplayer is barely functional, so this is a primarily single-player game. What does a single-player game need? AI that is both intelligent and consistent. Instead, it ranges from being near-brain-dead to nonsensically clairvoyant. The AI will frequently march armies back and forth between two provinces while their country gets occupied by a tiny force in comparison to theirs. They'll sign peace deals for idiotic things. I've seen Brittany force a Burgundy that annexed France to release France only to have France declare war on Brittany to vassalise them immediately after. Then there's attrition: AI are completely unaffected by attrition caused by troops that are not their own, frequently resulting in doomstacks of 100K+ men. The AI is unaffected by naval attrition entirely. They'll stupidly colonise provinces with no value while high-value ones are unclaimed. Then there's the flip side. Several small nations will manage to act as a single, cohesive force and win against impossible odds because their large enemy splits its armies into tiny chunks and never changes its strategy in reaction to its losses. The AI will know exactly when armies are coming and exactly when a country is in a weakened state, resulting in a dogpiling effect that destroys otherwise strong nations. Paradox decided to try and fix this by adding in a feature which gives bonuses to a country which is suffering, which offers massive benefits to large countries while giving small ones nothing.

    Speaking of massive benefits to large countries while completely ignoring small ones, Paradox loves to do this. Larger countries get free diplomats, a no-upkeep general, and are somehow able to manage their larger administration more effectively than a small country can manage their smaller one. Larger countries also get benefits that change with their government type, such as conquered lands being more susceptible to pay taxes and contribute manpower. What do small countries get? Nothing. Worse, the larger countries get bonuses that specifically make it easier to peacefully vassalise and promptly annex the smaller countries without giving the smaller country a chance to become powerful. Then there are "lucky nations", which are significant bonuses which get applied to countries which were historically successful, just in case their overpowered "idea" bonuses, or the bonuses from their rich lands, or the bonuses from tailored missions and events weren't enough.

    Then there are more general annoyances. The rivalry system for example, forces the AI to have as many rivals as possible even when it is completely against their strategic interests, resulting in things like Scotland fighting an independent Ireland rather than cooperating with them and leaving England to just show up and annex at their leisure. As mentioned, the heavy reliance on RNG in combat constantly results in losses that should have been victories. Then there's development, which rather than increasing slowly in a somewhat uniform manner with exceptions to areas of plenty such as large cities and trade centers, increases based on the expense of magical "monarch points" to conjure taxpayers and soldiers wherever one wises. This results in metropolises next to dirt hut villages and in ridiculous places like Shetland.

    Finally, the DLC. Imagine if Bethesda released Dawnguard in parts: For $30, you can have the mechanical changes: such as vampirism, the quests, and crossbows. For $12, the dawnguard and vampire armour would come with the new models and textures rather than just looking like the base game's leather armour. For $4.50, you get the music from Dawnguard. Oh, and by the way, the game's mechanics were changed to be balanced around having crossbows and vampire attacks with the "free" patch shipped alongside the DLC, meaning the game is unbalanced if you don't have the mechanical changes DLC. If you choose not to update though, you won't get the included bug fixes or sparse optimisation and gameplay improvements. That's a total of $46.50 for the DLC included with ONE patch, for a $60 game. To top it off, mix in a hearty serving of game-breaking bugs, incompatible saves, crashing, and problems ranging all the way to being unable to even launch the game for at least a week after the patch. That would be Skyrim's Dawnguard DLC if it were made by Paradox.

    Overall, I'd give the game a 4/10, because it shows potential, but nearly $240 (and counting) to play the full game leads me to believe that that potential will never be more than just potential.    … Expand
  20. Thunderstorm
    Sep 6, 2015
    0
    Could be a decent game, if it had a tutorial that wasn't broken and "learning" the game would be remotely fun. It requires an unknown amount of entertainment-free work for a new player to do anything meaningful. I don't know where game developers get the idea that it's ok when your game sucks for a while.

    For me it was a clear zero, a complete waste of time and money.
  21. Zarsus
    Sep 12, 2014
    1
    I was utterly addicted to the game.. until the 1.6 & 1.7 that just made me quit it probably forever. It's one thing to fix bugs and adding missing features, it's another thing to modify the game mechanics again and again and again and actually making the game worse.
    Now it's pretty much pointless to play any non-European nation since they'll be utterly defenseless in late games, and    I was utterly addicted to the game.. until the 1.6 & 1.7 that just made me quit it probably forever. It's one thing to fix bugs and adding missing features, it's another thing to modify the game mechanics again and again and again and actually making the game worse.
    Now it's pretty much pointless to play any non-European nation since they'll be utterly defenseless in late games, and westernization is much more excruciating with less benefits than before. If you don't westernize you are screwed; if you do you are still screwed, just a little bit less so. They might as well just stop wasting time on adding events/game mechanics for all non-European nations since there's no point in that. If I wanted to experience something completely historically accurate, I'd read Wikipedia on world history, thank you very much.
    Oh, and it's very irritating that, Monarchy Points, the one most vital resource to the game is nearly completely random, the super expensive +3 administrator means nothing when your ruler has 0 talent, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nothing. At all. So instead of screwing around with working game mechanics, how about adding some sort of successor mechanics such that the player can select from a number of different successors, each with his own pro and cons.    … Expand
  22. alex-smollet
    Sep 5, 2014
    2
    This is randomizer - not a strategy game. Random unpredictable game events, random battle results. Very bugged patch 1.7. Waste of time. Shogun 2 or CIV5 more playable than this "product".
  23. Daisai
    Aug 23, 2014
    3
    Although this game is not as bad designed as HoI it still is very bugged and very poorly designed.
    There are so many key bugs in this game that are causing you to lose a battle and for a game that was released in 2013 you would expect a more finished product by now.
    Ones you play and therefor also test this product a little further ( which the developers did not do ) you come across    Although this game is not as bad designed as HoI it still is very bugged and very poorly designed.
    There are so many key bugs in this game that are causing you to lose a battle and for a game that was released in 2013 you would expect a more finished product by now.

    Ones you play and therefor also test this product a little further ( which the developers did not do ) you come across some game breaking bugs.
    Moral values not working and manpower simply disappearing when a army is to big ( with the thousands a tick and without the message ).

    Those kind of bugs should have been fixed long before the game is even released, however this developer is more busy releasing dlc for this game and not fixing these bugs.

    Thats why this game gets a 3, the gameplay is poor and the fact that they give poor support on their product makes it so that they earn this score.    … Expand
  24. anmont
    Jul 25, 2014
    2
    Out of Sync.

    There is nothing worse than wanting to play an advanced grand strategy game than connecting to the game with a friend and being unable to play. EU4 has not resolved this issue, and it has plagued faithful buyers for years. While this is one of my favorite series, with in-depth complicated gameplay, it is in effect a single player game. Anyone who suggests otherwise, has    Out of Sync.

    There is nothing worse than wanting to play an advanced grand strategy game than connecting to the game with a friend and being unable to play.

    EU4 has not resolved this issue, and it has plagued faithful buyers for years. While this is one of my favorite series, with in-depth complicated gameplay, it is in effect a single player game. Anyone who suggests otherwise, has not played very far into a scenario. It works great for the first couple of decades and then disintegrates into a explosion of saving the game manually across the network and reloading from the last good save.

    If you want to play this game solo, its a 9/10. BUY IT...
    If you want to play with friends, please don't buy this game and quit reading the insane comments from people who have spent less than 10 hours playing the game. Do a simple google search for eu4 and OOS and find the hundreds of threads relating to this topic, that have persisted for several years in all of Paradox strategy games (Eu3, Crusader Kings, Victoria).    … Expand
  25. ShiningDec
    Jul 16, 2014
    0
    The game was good at the begining, but after each patch, its quality drop constantly. Developer make the game become more boring and prevent player from expanding by any tool they can imagine. Please don't buy this game.
  26. revieweuropa
    Jun 14, 2014
    0
    It's the perfect and maybe most realistic strategy game ever.
    I knew that when I bought it, but didn't think about what it literally means. It means, you have to spend maybe years to conquere the World, maybe at least 3 weeks of intensive gaming, to double the size of your country. It definitely takes too much time, and in my opinion it definitely lacks an easy mode.
    I recommend you to    It's the perfect and maybe most realistic strategy game ever.
    I knew that when I bought it, but didn't think about what it literally means. It means, you have to spend maybe years to conquere the World, maybe at least 3 weeks of intensive gaming, to double the size of your country. It definitely takes too much time, and in my opinion it definitely lacks an easy mode.
    I recommend you to play it, if you have at least two, or more lifes. If you only have one, do not waste 2 or more years on playing this game.    … Expand
  27. Cyliann
    Jun 5, 2014
    1
    Loved EU3, even with the rather abruptly ending time-line. This? Ho boy.

    Paradox Interactive has decided after a repeated amount of failures to simply stream-line their product to a now shallow experience from what used to be an intensive and deep conquering experience. As EU3, EU4 features "Random events" that causes your countries stability to go down. The difference from this game    Loved EU3, even with the rather abruptly ending time-line. This? Ho boy.

    Paradox Interactive has decided after a repeated amount of failures to simply stream-line their product to a now shallow experience from what used to be an intensive and deep conquering experience. As EU3, EU4 features "Random events" that causes your countries stability to go down. The difference from this game and the prequel is that you could spend your country's budget on increasing the country's stability, be it re-building things, bribing rebellious people or just getting things in order.

    What does this mean? Well, you sometimes had to pour every single ounce of your earnings into this as Stability meant more income and a happier populance and sometimes, the game could decide to be especially cruel and constantly ravage your country's stability. That was fine since you could be a careful ruler and prepared counter-measures such as a fat treasury or having the proper advisors. In EU4? Get unlucky with a lot of instability and you're boned by being utterly crippled by either not being able to research better governmenting or simply not gaining enough administrative power due to a rubbish leader. Rebels will also, comedically enough, everywhere at war-times, being many times the size of your country's total manpower as your entire economy also crumbles down to a shadow of It's former glory. The methods of reducing this? Wait around for administrative power. Yup. No budget relocation, no personal efforts from you and 100% impossible situations... Unless you Save & Load abuse, averting these random events.

    It removes depth, It removes customizability, It removes consequences from user input and It's simply a pile of streamlined garbage because Instead of crafting a proper tutorial to get new people into this game, Paradox decided to just slam everything down so flat, any handicapped idiot can walk over it and seeing all these 10/10's being thrown like poop from monkeys makes me believe that everyone either hasn't even tried EU3 or failed to understand even a fraction of it.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand what they were trying to do by making advisors be "point" generators instead of allocating budget.. But the thing is, advisors are vomit-inducingly expensive. At the start of my game, the year 51 after christ, I could have the option of hiring an administrative helper. He demands a down-payment of 150 gold. Understandable since he is good but the sinner here is the additional 9.3 gold EVERY MONTH. How much is that? Well, let's just say It's far above the maximum amounts you can pay to enough to fully maintain an army of about 100,000+ men when you can only maintain about 20,000 men.

    If you own 4-5 regions, you can expect a monthly income of about 2-3 gold discluding expenses. This means he either uses diamonds as toilet paper or has an incureable habit of breathing gold.. Just.... No. Try harder next time, Paradox Interactive.    … Expand
  28. Jimbro84
    Apr 10, 2014
    0
    Sadly, a lot of work was put into this game and I wanted hard to like it but no, it sucks. If civ5 is a little predictable, EU4 is soo random. EU4 is superior to civ5 as to diplomacy BUT: Constant clock watching and reading of mundane pop-ups of bad news. Very few units and buildings and 90% of that implies no visuals. Not to mention that the battles are devoid of any strategy besidesSadly, a lot of work was put into this game and I wanted hard to like it but no, it sucks. If civ5 is a little predictable, EU4 is soo random. EU4 is superior to civ5 as to diplomacy BUT: Constant clock watching and reading of mundane pop-ups of bad news. Very few units and buildings and 90% of that implies no visuals. Not to mention that the battles are devoid of any strategy besides terrain modifiers and adding generals and admirals (which is more of a choice than a strategy anyways). Overly hard, boring and complicated. Virtually no tutorials. Nice graphics though.… Expand
  29. rpundurs
    Mar 6, 2014
    3
    I've never experienced a game like it in its attention to historical detail. I've likewise never experienced a game like it in how little fun it is to play.

    Paradox has produced a game that will entice the student of history in you, but will likely bore the rest of you. To begin with, EU4's presentation is nothing if not opaque. This time they've made more of an effort to document the    I've never experienced a game like it in its attention to historical detail. I've likewise never experienced a game like it in how little fun it is to play.

    Paradox has produced a game that will entice the student of history in you, but will likely bore the rest of you. To begin with, EU4's presentation is nothing if not opaque. This time they've made more of an effort to document the mechanisms of play in tutorials (and a fifty-page manual), but these efforts are still grossly insufficient to meet the punishing learning curve. Without constant reference to the wiki or official forums, a new player will be hopelessly lost. Despite what Paradox grognards seem to believe, this is not a positive feature.

    Ultimately, should you invest the 10+ hours needed to arm yourself with the basic understanding needed to play at all, you will be left with an intensely hollow experience. In the long run, it can be a joy to see your plans come to fruition, but in the interim, you will be left with a lot of clock-watching and empty busywork as the game continues to bombard you with trivial pop-ups for mundane tasks that, irritatingly, cannot be left on autopilot (the Curia control system is most egregious in this regard). The sheer volume of flags, however, belie their emptiness - there's very little fun to be had in maintaining your empire while waiting for your next opportunity to strike.

    For all the Europa Universalis series has been billed as part of the military strategy genre, the warfare is incredibly shallow. There are virtually no tactics involved in prosecuting a war; in some cases terrain may aid a defender, but neither logistics nor heroics are any match for economics in EU's world. Ultimately, this is a game of diplomacy - of decades-long plans to inveigle certain nations into attacking you only to be crushed, of forming royal marriages for the sake of later usurping that nation's throne, of excising provinces from a rival empire over and over again until it is small enough to be vassalized. That description gives the game an air of intrigue and mystery, but make no mistake: the game has all the mystique (and presentation) of an Excel spreadsheet.

    The actual mechanics of play are deceptively simplistic - success in this game relies on diplomatic strategy, but shaping a good strategy relies on an intense, almost professional understanding of the game's unexplained and often invisible logic. That's not even bringing the unfair and unpredictable nature of random events (such as the infamous comet) into the discussion. Ultimately, the best strategies are those that play to the AI's weaknesses and the idiosyncracies of the game mechanics. Though carrying out your strategy requires nothing more strenuous than navigation through a few menus, it is a long process of trial and error to determine which buttons to push and when, and the best methods are often counter-intuitive (if not totally illogical). For instance, the Overextension mechanics restrict the number of provinces you can hope to gain in war to such an extent that the only way to expand with any speed is by integrating vassals and junior partners - and God help you if you attempt to make use of those game mechanics without several hours of wiki-crawling and a few Paradox forum threads.

    The Metacritic score for this game is extremely misleading: despite Paradox's obvious attempt to reach out to new players with polished graphics and tutorials, Europa Universalis IV is not a game that anyone outside its niche will enjoy. Paradox's grand plan for its strategy game lines is essentially to sell slight variations on the same game over and over again to a hard core of devoted fans. Those who enjoy this game are those who do not flinch at the unforgiving, opaque, tedious, and frustrating nature of the experience. For players who are not willing to spend 100+ hours clicking flags, who don't mind watching dozens of hours of work go up in smoke after a couple of random events pop, or who have no objections to constantly alt-tabbing to outside information resources, this game must be Heaven. For the rest of us, it's reminiscent of someplace altogether different.    … Expand
  30. BillNyeTheScien
    Feb 8, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The game is not horrible. But not what I expected there are a few things that get on my nerves when playing the game. One is that the game is very dark. not bright at all. Another thing is that the mac version is extremely laggy and delays when you try to move the screen. the time speed increase should be a little faster. And I don't like the new technology and nerfed buildings. I just pointed out some of the bad parts of the game. I do like the new relations and diplomacy system instead of there being a random chance of a nation accepting an alliance like in the third title.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

11
#11 Best PC Game of 2013
34
#34 Most Discussed PC Game of 2013
1
#1 Most Shared PC Game of 2013

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 34
  3. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. DarkStation
    Dec 12, 2013
    80
    Once players overcome the initial learning curve, Europa Universalis IV will prove a memorable strategy experience that provides as much fun stories as it does sheer tactical complexity.
    Read full review
  2. PC PowerPlay
    Oct 28, 2013
    90
    Somehow retains the series' trademark braininess and complexity while being clearer, simpler and far more fun. [Nov 2013, p.92]
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Oct 24, 2013
    100
    The ultimate strategic simulator of an early modern history state with wide options for both success and failure. Do you want to unite Britain under Scotland, thwart the Spanish Reconquista or maintain the Inca empire? Suit yourself. [Issue#234]
See all critic reviews »