Of EUIV, CKII or VIC II, which one has the best combat system and units according to you?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Haven't played Victoria 2, but for war/combat - EU4 over CK2 everyday. They are quite similar, but EU4's system of national ideas, ideas, policies and army composition (instead of just a bundle of levies and maybe a retinue later on) is much more diverse (and thus fun) than CK2's system.
Also not combat but still war - EU4's suing for peace system is much more fun and dynamic than CK2's 3 states of "win, loss or draw" at the conclusion of a war, adding a layer of tactical strategy and immersion that CK2 should've had.
Also not combat but still war - EU4's suing for peace system is much more fun and dynamic than CK2's 3 states of "win, loss or draw" at the conclusion of a war, adding a layer of tactical strategy and immersion that CK2 should've had.
Victoria 2 combat, whilst simplistic and inappropriate for WW1, actually punishes you for being hyperagressive and makes you think carefully about your losses, as each lost man hurts your economy, not to mention lost wars being able to spiral into the complete destruction of your nation by Nationalist Rebels. It also allows for some extra demands on top of your CB, at a high cost. Don't expect to take more than two provinces unless you cheat(event 18540) or get extremely lucky.
CK2 has that personal touch to it, but its effect is relatively minor. From my experience, if you roll 20+ Martial Commanders or you yourself are a 35 Martial Khagan Genghis Incarnate, you can easily win most battles as long as you aren't extremely outnumbered. I like CK2's CBs, as you are only allowed to take what you declare war for. No extreme blobbing, you expand carefully and consolidate your realm by finding every possible way to kill your kids because you're a Pagan who is stuck on Gavelkind...
EU4 warfare mainly comes down to stacking as many Military ideas and policies as possible, or just literally doomstacking if all else fails, because you have a "Free Manpower" button and Attrition is too weak to matter, so casualties are easily replaced.
And don't let me get started on the blobbing...
CK2 has that personal touch to it, but its effect is relatively minor. From my experience, if you roll 20+ Martial Commanders or you yourself are a 35 Martial Khagan Genghis Incarnate, you can easily win most battles as long as you aren't extremely outnumbered. I like CK2's CBs, as you are only allowed to take what you declare war for. No extreme blobbing, you expand carefully and consolidate your realm by finding every possible way to kill your kids because you're a Pagan who is stuck on Gavelkind...
EU4 warfare mainly comes down to stacking as many Military ideas and policies as possible, or just literally doomstacking if all else fails, because you have a "Free Manpower" button and Attrition is too weak to matter, so casualties are easily replaced.
And don't let me get started on the blobbing...
EU IV and Vic II have basically the same combat system. Whereas in EU IV you always try to make the frontline bigger, the aim in Vic is actually to reduce it. But besides of that you have front line, back line and flanking units in EU which get replaced by recon units in Vic. In both you want to have enough frontline units to fill combat width (plus some spares) to shield the squishy back line units which deal the damage.
CK II is just
(In fact it's far more complicated, I know, but as a player you have next to no influence (i.e. troop composition of individual flanks etc))
I prefer the system of HoI IV (which wasn't asked for in this thread).
CK II is just
(In fact it's far more complicated, I know, but as a player you have next to no influence (i.e. troop composition of individual flanks etc))
I prefer the system of HoI IV (which wasn't asked for in this thread).
Vic2 is great but at some point to much to hamdle. To many stacks.
EU4 has just one goal. Get Prussia Ideas.
CK2 is easy to handle. You get one Doomstack. That’s I like. The first battle decides and than you sack the cities.
EU4 has just one goal. Get Prussia Ideas.
CK2 is easy to handle. You get one Doomstack. That’s I like. The first battle decides and than you sack the cities.
Victoria's combat system is actually outdated now, but the basic premise is arguably the best, if we're talking how war is incorporated into the game. War in V2 is literally continuation of politics by other means, and it has very real consequences.
War is expensive and dangerous and not every piece of territory is worth taking. As Victoria is not just about painting the map, war is actually a part of the game and not the goal of the game.
How the actual wars are conducted in the game is something that could be worked on. Specifically, some rudimentary HOI systems would integrate well into Victora, specifically Theaters and front management for late game.
War is expensive and dangerous and not every piece of territory is worth taking. As Victoria is not just about painting the map, war is actually a part of the game and not the goal of the game.
How the actual wars are conducted in the game is something that could be worked on. Specifically, some rudimentary HOI systems would integrate well into Victora, specifically Theaters and front management for late game.
I liked CK2's best at release, but the promise of impactful tactics and handpicked army composition, was quickly designed out with things like retinues and other rebalances. Plus, there are too many giant stacks around.
EU4 has the best system overall because the warfare system that CK2 puts its combat in is pretty inflexible and grindy. However, the impact of ideas over composition and tech is too strong imo.
EU4 has the best system overall because the warfare system that CK2 puts its combat in is pretty inflexible and grindy. However, the impact of ideas over composition and tech is too strong imo.
CK2 has the most complexity and arguably tries the hardest to simulate a battle correctly. Unfortunately all of the various factors just pile up and then degenerates into a clusterf**k where you just throw a bunch of troops in and hope for the best.
EU4 is the simplest but most functional. It's very basic with almost no depth unfortunately. Your tactical choices boil down to what tech you start using artillery at and figuring out whether or not you sufficiently overpower someone to be worth fighting at a terrain disadvantage.
V2 is EU4 + a lot of additional tricks like forts, engineers, recon, and much more important tech, but has significant problems in implementation (issues like artillery constantly ending up on the frontline) which just sucks to see and ends up nullifying a lot of the depth. Because artillery is so much more powerful than infantry the ideal composition becomes 100% artillery in extended fights.
EU4 is the simplest but most functional. It's very basic with almost no depth unfortunately. Your tactical choices boil down to what tech you start using artillery at and figuring out whether or not you sufficiently overpower someone to be worth fighting at a terrain disadvantage.
V2 is EU4 + a lot of additional tricks like forts, engineers, recon, and much more important tech, but has significant problems in implementation (issues like artillery constantly ending up on the frontline) which just sucks to see and ends up nullifying a lot of the depth. Because artillery is so much more powerful than infantry the ideal composition becomes 100% artillery in extended fights.
Last edited:
One interesting factor that vic2 has is the tie between resources and units, that each unit has to be resupplied with necessary equipment to be functional combat unit. It was one thing i got stuck on when playing the first few times, and England and the other great powers where hogging all the supply and i forgot the produce any myself.
I think it's funny that people are actually fans of V2's combat system. It was notorious for not being fatal enough and for most battles being inconclusive. It was good that high casualties hurt your economy, like it does IRL. Also, mobilization is a great mechanic.
I'm surprised people think the CK2 system is complicated. I mean, yes, the mechanics behind the system are complicated, but the only factor that really matters the vast majority of the time (honestly it seems like 95+% of the time) is who has the largest army.
Last edited:
It's "complicated" in that it's opaque, IMO. Even for all of its complexity though, you really just end up smashing the biggest stack you can at the enemy... that's probably because it's so complicated to figure out and you only have indirect control over your army composition.
I watched a video about march of the eagles recently and I completely agree with you. It's system would work perfectly for this age and would make real historic strategies like the weighted right flank from the diadochi and the weakend centre from Hannibal at Cannae viable strategies. It would as well allow you to concentrate elephants or your heavy cav in one flank aiming to win that flank for example.
I'm guessing i'm more interested in how the combat system impacts to rest of the game rather than the combat system itself, thats why i think Vic2 might be more interesting too me. Paradox games really haven't let you have as much control on the tactical part of battle, Ck2 had AI control by random chance which tactic it would use and EU4 uses dices to decide outcomes, i think interested combat have come from its impact on other parts of the game or through strategic placement of forces.
Personally, while Vicky2 is my favourite Paradox game (even though I haven't touched it in ages), its combat system has several glaring flaws:
Which leaves EU4 as the winner through elimination.
- In the lategame (pre-tanks) focused on the defence. Which is of course historical, but the AI just does not get it. Millions of Russians and French died while assaulting my German lines.
- Stack cycling makes you basically unable to lose battles. Retreat heavily injured stacks, have them regenerate, send them back in. Once again, historical, but completely removes any challenge from battle.
- Lategame is too focused on Gas Attack and Defence. I had a Persia game were I didn't get gas defence until 1935, and thus my lategame capabilities sucked.
Which leaves EU4 as the winner through elimination.
EU rome have better combat system than EUIV with 6 different unit types, units getting experience and generals being actual characters.
How is CK2 random? Bigger size wins nearly every since time. That's my issue with CK2: it's way too predictable. Got a larger army? Enjoy your victory, sir.