-
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.
I enjoy eu4 more. It's much more of a macro game, even if less detailed. CK2 just gets extremely frustrating with many of its "features" and overall limitations.
The way of life change is ALMOST the greatest patch ever, but the ability to just kidnap fools with no consequence is basically game-breaking to me, and the seduction system seems to be some kind of horny nerd fantasy where literally anyone will sleep with anyone, regardless of charm or personality, based entirely on frequency of pestering to do so, to where any kind of relationship role is meaningless next to the awesome power of sleeping your way into a plot to kill network or bastard claims. Then there's blob stability, which at this point it seems that eu4s coalitions somehow manage to keep blobs in check actually better than eu4s internal mechanisms that should never lose this one.
Eu4 on the flip side is way less involved and basically a war game. Personal interactions are moot and peacetime is a snorefest, but that comes with good and bad, since you can just focus on what seems to be done mostly right (conquest) and play it as a war game and enjoy it as such. Basically, eu4 is a war game and does it pretty well, ck2 is a dynasty builder game that's only really good as a war game, but not eu4 good, and its core dynasty mechanics at this point are more of a drawback, even if they're more fun than doing nothing while at peace.
Play both. Don't be cheap.
The way of life change is ALMOST the greatest patch ever, but the ability to just kidnap fools with no consequence is basically game-breaking to me, and the seduction system seems to be some kind of horny nerd fantasy where literally anyone will sleep with anyone, regardless of charm or personality, based entirely on frequency of pestering to do so, to where any kind of relationship role is meaningless next to the awesome power of sleeping your way into a plot to kill network or bastard claims. Then there's blob stability, which at this point it seems that eu4s coalitions somehow manage to keep blobs in check actually better than eu4s internal mechanisms that should never lose this one.
Eu4 on the flip side is way less involved and basically a war game. Personal interactions are moot and peacetime is a snorefest, but that comes with good and bad, since you can just focus on what seems to be done mostly right (conquest) and play it as a war game and enjoy it as such. Basically, eu4 is a war game and does it pretty well, ck2 is a dynasty builder game that's only really good as a war game, but not eu4 good, and its core dynasty mechanics at this point are more of a drawback, even if they're more fun than doing nothing while at peace.
Play both. Don't be cheap.
- 5
I used to prefer CK2 but I have disagreed with the way it has been developed since RoI so since then I've been playing EU4.
2.4 might change this but we'll see.
2.4 might change this but we'll see.
id say CK 2 for a more immersive experience if you're like me and skipped the boring magic parts of the ASOIAF novels just get back to the politics
Eu4 for if you like a colour, just one colour, , and like the idea of fighting other colours, particularly that damn big blue colour that wont stop eating everything no matter how much you try to fight it, or paradox tries to patch it
Eu4 for if you like a colour, just one colour, , and like the idea of fighting other colours, particularly that damn big blue colour that wont stop eating everything no matter how much you try to fight it, or paradox tries to patch it
- 1
Its rather odd really. Crusader's king 2 should be the game I like more as it has more of my style of rpg elements in it but I've played Eu 4 about ten times more in hours then CK 2 and to be honest probably enjoy it more. Although I suppose this is due to Meiou and Taxes (An Awesome mod) more then anything. Haven't been able to find that CK 2 mod that keeps my interest like Meiou does for EU 4. Of course it could just be that EU 4 runs much slower with Meiou and thus takes longer then CK 2 does
That being said I'm not sure If I really like the way Europa is going with recent expansions. To much focus on monarch points for my liking. Never really liked that particular gameplay design but didn't annoy me as much as they seem to do now a days.
That being said I'm not sure If I really like the way Europa is going with recent expansions. To much focus on monarch points for my liking. Never really liked that particular gameplay design but didn't annoy me as much as they seem to do now a days.
- 1
EU4 has way too many arbitrary restrictions and I don't like how everything costs a "mana" of some kind. I still used to like it but the new fort system is making wars and rebellions so annoying. Because rebels can now instant-siege your provinces, tons of provinces get "x years of nationalism" before you've even had a chance to march your armies over.
- 2
- 2
I have more time in Victoria 2 than any other PDX game. HOWEVER, I will say CK2 is their best game. They are all very good, but CK2 just feels right. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Rome 2 is more CK than EU this time around. Now, if the landless Nomads is true I just need PDX to make me a game that scratches the Migration period itch that Attila: Total War has slightly scratched.
- 2
Crusader Kings series is my favourite also; let's not forget the first iteration was and still is a lot of murky, grubby fun. And agreed about itches than aren't currently scratched, ERE v Sassanians period or back to Konstantine the Great's founding of his "Nova Roma" are bookmarks if not actual games I would salute or even bribe PDX for,
- 1
Nowadays I like EU4 far more than CK2 but that was not the case when EU4 was released. With a few dozen or so DLCs EU4 actually is an awsome game. CK2 has so much potential so I keep my hopes up. Anyway Rome 2 will be their best game as soon as it is released.
or so DLCs EU4 actually is an awsome game. CK2 has so much potential so I keep my hopes up. Anyway Rome 2 will be their best game as soon as it is released.- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Playing multiplayer I prefer EU4, playing alone I prefer CK2. Overall what I enjoy the most is play EU4 multiplayer. But of course, not when is broken with OOS, rehost and crashes every damn session like in this last patch.
Funny, I've actually been disagreeing with some changes in EU4 since a recent patch and stopped playing for that reason.
Care to elaborate?
Must say I hate some things EU4 did, like making westernization so damn easy and adding more provinces.
The game explicitly tells you where and why rebellions happen, apart from rebels by event.
L2P issue, I´m afraid.
I like CK2 better. It has more of a personality, and I'm quite fond of the character development aspect, that's wholly absent from EU. With EU there's no sense of development(well, in a sense, now it has, but I'm not talking about that development) or attachment at all. It just seems rather flat for me, I play it mostly when I want to goof around with brutal warfare but feel too lazy to deal with the internal policy details, diplomatic subtleties, time constraints and general age of Vicky II(I don't appreciate the warfare aspect of CKII much, not for itself).
- 2
For one thing the game has gotten unplayably slow, and I don't like some of the ways the game has been "balanced".
So the preorder really worked out for you then! And maybe, just maybe, one day you'll convert a 1444 CK2 save game and try EU4
- 1
If I ever manage to finish a game.So the preorder really worked out for you then! And maybe, just maybe, one day you'll convert a 1444 CK2 save game and try EU4
Finishing a game ? No one ever finishes a Paradox game !
- 4