not who you're replying to - so they share some similarities but are all the Paradox games are independent and have different foci. Here are my thoughts: Stel

not who you're replying to - so they share some similarities but are all the Paradox games are independent and have different foci. Here are my thoughts: Stellaris is probably the easiest to get into, but I'm not a big fan; I see it as only a few steps above Civ complexity and tedium. It is broadly similar to Civ in concept and in how the game plays out. The sci-fi setting can be a plus, compared to the other games which are rooted in history. However this is also a con in that you lose all the dynamics and lore that make historical factions interesting. It's hard to manufacture good backstories from scratch, after all. I would recommend Crusader Kings or EU4 instead. Crusader Kings is best described as a dynasty simulator. Yes, you can lead countries, raise armies and conquer your enemies, engage in diplomacy and intrigue, etc. But ultimately it's more of a game about people than nations. For instance, several main aspects of managing your realm are maintaining your relationships with your vassals, and planning for your succession and developing your heir. These are mechanics that would typically be abstracted away, and only really make sense from the game's _personal_ perspective. There are a lot more RPG elements as a result. EU4's core concept is simpler than Crusader Kings - you are a nation, and your goals are viewed from those lens. It throws out the characterization of Crusader Kings in return for much more fleshed out mechanics around war, politics, and diplomacy. Consequently the gameplay is more strategic than Crusader Kings, at least in my view.