EU IV OR CK2 ??

[schascha]

During the sales of winter, I bought Stellaris, it was my first from Paradox.
Now Iwould like try another game and I hesitate between EUIV and CKII.
Which one is more easy to get in ???
Which DLCs are you advise to take ???

 

[WOLDoftheWOLD]

Crusader Kings in my opinion is much easier to get into. You won't have to manage your empire as a whole. Instead, manage yourself and characters around you. Very rewarding experience if you put the time into it.
Try out "The Old Gods" and "Way of Life", both are good additions to the game.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

So those are two very different games.

Coming from Stellaris, EUIV would be the easiest to get into because it has a similar "nation-level" focus where you play an ambivalent national spirit that drives a country forward (like Stellaris). In CKII you have a character and that character's traits may limit the choices you can make. You also have to deal with inter-character issues, make sure you get your sons married off to women with huuuuuuuuuuuge... tracks of land, and avoid catching a rash when rolling in the hay with your rival's daughter.

If the character aspect sounds like fun, definitely go for CKII - Sword of Islam and The Old Gods are probably the best XPs for that and will open up Muslim and Pagan characters for play.

If you prefer the national spirit aspect of Stellaris, go with EUIV - As for XPs, not really 100% sure what the community considers "the best" but dig around and see which most impact the different game aspects you are interested in.

 

[Susanna]

They're both great games - are you more interested in playing a character, or a country? (Also, one period might be of more interest.)

I don't see how you could go wrong with either, really.

As for EPs for EU4, I believe Art of War is universally recommended, and I would say Common Sense was also a good idea.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

EU4 is about blobbing.

CK2 is about blobbing.

Take your pick.

 

[Kliwarrior]

Completely different games.
Perhaps in EUIV the learning curve is less steep.
(In CK2 ,even starting with a powerful kingdom can lead to a complete collapse in a matter of years if not well managed )

 

[Pile_O_Gunz]

EU IV though I warn you Stellaris will seem so restraining after.

 

[durbal]

EUIV is by far a better-designed game. CK2 was a tighter game than it is now at one point but it really fell apart in the last year and a half or so.

EUIV is getting better with each expansion whereas it seems like they've totally lost their vision with CK2 and just keep adding junk.

 

[redsimonDE]

CKII is the better game if you like role-playing and playing a character. At its heart it is a ruler and dynasty simulator and also has a bigger focus on religion where religion decides much of your gameplay.

EUIV is a nation, research and economy simulator. It has more options in total, but characters play a very small role. Coming from CKII EUIV and even Stellaris felt dead to me with such a small focus on characters.

Completely different games.
Perhaps in EUIV the learning curve is less steep.
(In CK2 ,even starting with a powerful kingdom can lead to a complete collapse in a matter of years if not well managed )

I have to disagree. CKII is easier to learn as it has less mechanics. It is just more difficult to keep a realm stable because the stability is based on a single character, the ruler.

 

[icedt729]

EU4 is about blobbing.

CK2 is about blobbing.

Take your pick.

They're both *mostly* about blobbing, but CK2 definitely has more to do during peacetime with realm and dynasty management. I usually spend at least as much time cleaning house (undermining powerful vassals, adjusting laws, dealing with claimants, etc) as I do fighting for expansion.

 

[_Perun_]

If you are more of an adventure hungry gentleman, take CK2. If you are a power hungry strategist, choose EU4. CK2 is darker and has no clear aim (so you need to motivate yourself to achieve things as after your first world conquest you will not necessarily want to expand at all cost). EU4 is colourful and more rewarding. I love CK2 but keep EU4 as a mistress.

 

[heliostellar]

EUIV is by far a better-designed game. CK2 was a tighter game than it is now at one point but it really fell apart in the last year and a half or so.

EUIV is getting better with each expansion whereas it seems like they've totally lost their vision with CK2 and just keep adding junk.

This. CK2 has become an unbalanced mess. It has some arbitrary rules and some really unpolished edges. The last several DLCs have been laser focused on very specific parts of the game that not everyone really even cares about (Horse Lords, Conclave). This is on top of the ridiculous lag.

EU4 has consistently revisited parts of the game that were uninteresting and continues to balance out the game.

 

[Kliwarrior]

This. CK2 has become an unbalanced mess. .

I strongly disagree. It's content has been constantly improved and enriched. What you call "mess" is great depth and complexity.

 

[schascha]

Thank you very much for your answers.
After reading your posts, it's clear EUIV will be my choice.
Now i'm waiting for a good sale.
Thank you again

 

[durbal]

I strongly disagree. It's content has been constantly improved and enriched. What you call "mess" is great depth and complexity.

It's become more and more like Goat Simulator. 'Hur hurr isn't that a funny bug?' I'm not even sure it's a strategy game anymore. Core issues remain unresolved or untouched and the developers have leaned toward ignoring them in favor of adding skeletons for mods. It's just bloated at this point and the bloat has only decreased the necessary strategy, not added anything new.

 

[Shock360]

Definitely EU4. CK2 feels too gamey with going between being able to repeatedly take entire kingdoms with claims, and being forced to take a single county at a time. It's just tiring by the end of a playthrough. I can get more excited prepping for it but I can never keep that

 

[heliostellar]

I strongly disagree. It's content has been constantly improved and enriched. What you call "mess" is great depth and complexity.

I respectfully disagree. I do think it is a mess. Basic things like rebels have never been changed because they aren't as sexy as playing as Genghis Khan even though they actually affect every single play through. EU4 was able to make rebels be something that used to be EXTREMELY annoying and arbitrary have some actual depth and flavor.

I think that focusing on things like hordes ended up diluting the game's focus. For instance, it took forever to get a basic fix for out-of-control Seduction focus with every consort essentially being a bastard factory. Similarly there was the Conclave/1.5 patch debacle, which introduced new, completely unbalanced features that people would vocally complain about like defensive alliances that would see the Pope and Caliph team up to take down a character holy warring on heathens. It's become a total mess with completely bizarre, un-fun game results.

 

[_Perun_]

People expecting CK to be a medieval EU are always going to get disappointed.

 

[heliostellar]

People expecting CK to be a medieval EU are always going to get disappointed.

No expectation of medieval EU, just some balanced features instead of gamey ridiculousness.

 

[Kliwarrior]

Similarly there was the Conclave/1.5 patch debacle, which introduced new, completely unbalanced features that people would vocally complain about like defensive alliances that would see the Pope and Caliph team up to take down a character holy warring on heathens

(Probably you are talking about 2.5 , not 1.5 , but anyway.. ) You are correct that defensive alliances or shattered retreats received a lot of negative feedbacks, but they can be simply disabled , if you really think they "break the game". Current fixpack is 2.6.3 , anyway, and I haven't seen pope and caliph banding together since a lot...
Conclave introduced a brand new level of play. Really if before ck2 was "just blobbing in middle ages" , now it's a complete different game.