Truth!
I only ever finished a few EU IV and EU III games, and many Vicky 2 games. I have not, however, finished a single CK2 game.
-
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 only ever finished a few EU IV and EU III games, and many Vicky 2 games. I have not, however, finished a single CK2 game.
Indeed.
I have never played CK2 to the end. Same goes for EU4. I have only played EU3 to the end, and MoTE as well. Maybe some other PDS games too, but never CK2 and EU4.
I have 'finished' HoI3 in the sense that I won WW2 as Germany in 1943 without reaching the end date, and at that point there was no one left to fight with anyway.
CK2 is too long, although i solve it by playing exclusively the 1337 bookmark.
Never went too far in EU4. And since CK2 was my first game, HoI3 and Vicky2 were utterly unplayable to me.
Never went too far in EU4. And since CK2 was my first game, HoI3 and Vicky2 were utterly unplayable to me.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.989
- 257.332
I like both but i never managed to play more than 10 generations in CK2 expect with Republics ( i would like to see more way of life stuff and more tips/information about it, and sorting tools when you pick a wife like green traits/genius and same aged caracter. Also i never find out how papacy work so just ignore it ) .
If had to choose , i would say EU4 but there is a lack of something ( like espionnage revamp ^^ ) and sometimes i've just get mad with multiple coalition, so what they couldn't join the first one they have to make others.
If had to choose , i would say EU4 but there is a lack of something ( like espionnage revamp ^^ ) and sometimes i've just get mad with multiple coalition, so what they couldn't join the first one they have to make others.
Except for Vicky. That game is only 100 years long. At least until they add the expansion that adds a 1300 BCE start date. Coming in November, Victoria II: The Old Kingdom.
- 1
Vicky's timeframe is small enough that you can reach the end. I have played until 1933 myself. The only reason that game ended is because it crashed, and by then I had little motivation to continue anyway so I considered it complete and deleted the save. I had already successfully modernized the nation I was playing (Punjab), reunited India and turned into the Asian superpower.
It was then when I got the idea that Paradox should allow us to continue our game into infinity (or thousands of years), like in a Civilization or Total War game where you have a button that allows you to jump back into the game and continue on, after reaching end date (or winning). It would be the responsibility of the player and nothing would progress and the game becomes completely ahistorical, but of course people like me who want to play can continue and play on to their hearts' content.
It was then when I got the idea that Paradox should allow us to continue our game into infinity (or thousands of years), like in a Civilization or Total War game where you have a button that allows you to jump back into the game and continue on, after reaching end date (or winning). It would be the responsibility of the player and nothing would progress and the game becomes completely ahistorical, but of course people like me who want to play can continue and play on to their hearts' content.
Last edited:
- 1
I play to the end in most of my games - EU4 almost all the time, HoI until the war's well and truly over, CK2 generally until the end, although I did pull up stumps at 1400 when it started slowing down a heap (I was playing a 'recreate the Roman Empire' playthrough, and had conquered most of the map, which I think didn't help), and Vicky always 
.
.- 1
I get to the end of Victoria 2 games occasionally and a handful of times in HoI 3, however I have never reached the end of either CK2 or EU4 despite hundreds of hours in both.
I will confess that I only played 2 EU4 and one Vicky 2 game to the end.
Yes. Ever since 2007. Those 3 are my complete games.
Hearts of Iron too needs more carrots on the stick to make people play until the end.
Yes. Ever since 2007. Those 3 are my complete games.
Hearts of Iron too needs more carrots on the stick to make people play until the end.
CK2, for sure. It has an engaging central mechanic, which, while it doesn't always work perfectly, is immersive, strategic and allows for a stronger element of role-play. I can't even really tell you what EU4's central mechanic is - monarch points, I guess? Either way, it often feels like a shell of a game, lacking the depth of CK2 and V2.
- 2
I like both games.
Still, if there were features that would make both games somewhat harder after you get big, they would be a lot more fun.
The only reason I never consider playing CK2 until the end is exactly for the lack of challenge after you reach a certain point. In EU4 this won't happen only because I will always choose to play as The Incas, Ethiopia or Morocco. I never even consider playing as France or Austria since I know very soon I will get bored for the same reasons I get bored when I play CK2.
Still, if there were features that would make both games somewhat harder after you get big, they would be a lot more fun.
The only reason I never consider playing CK2 until the end is exactly for the lack of challenge after you reach a certain point. In EU4 this won't happen only because I will always choose to play as The Incas, Ethiopia or Morocco. I never even consider playing as France or Austria since I know very soon I will get bored for the same reasons I get bored when I play CK2.
- 1
I like ck2 better due to the rpg component, but eu4 just much better maps and war demands. In ck2 you could have a small nation within your large empire and can only take a few or 1 territory at at time which is terrible . The small vassal limit is terrible, but manageble. Still, I preffer ck2 for the longer timeline, the rpg component, and, of course, the dynasties.
Strongest Necromancer I've ever seen! This power must have taken many years in a devil cult to achieve.
I prefer EU4 over CK2, as I've said before in other threads. The *WHY* is a more difficult thing to pin down, though. I actually preferred playing the original CK, believe it or not, partly because it didn't have such an explicit character focus - though I'll always say that CK2 was the first of the current breed of higher launch quality PDS games.
No matter how many (many!) times I've tried, CK2's gameplay has never quite caught me. It falls between two stools, neither the map-painter that the EU series is, nor a real immersive RPG.
No matter how many (many!) times I've tried, CK2's gameplay has never quite caught me. It falls between two stools, neither the map-painter that the EU series is, nor a real immersive RPG.
While this discussion is relevant, shouldn't this thread be locked as a necro, and we can keep discussing it in the somewhat more contemporary threads?