-
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 would be inclined to disagree. Mostly because I seek immersion and graphical believability in my games as a primary aesthetic value.
CKII map is horribly inaccurate. Almost everything is not where it should be. Rivers flow past major cities that define their character. Borders are pretty horribly misshapen The EU IV map is MUCH closer to real geography.
CKII has no graphical seasons, making it less immersive for me, and I tend to play on faster speeds in CKII because looking the static map gets VERY boring, where as in EU IV I can imagine all my little citizens going about their seasonal activities as the weather changes. Kind of disappointing given I MUCH prefer the base gameplay of CKII in respect to roleplaying immersion.
The interfaces are both incredibly good at what they do in my opinion, I'd say theyre tied.
(None of this implies that CKII is a bad game or that PDS are bad people, just to make this clear.)
CKII map is horribly inaccurate. Almost everything is not where it should be. Rivers flow past major cities that define their character. Borders are pretty horribly misshapen The EU IV map is MUCH closer to real geography.
CKII has no graphical seasons, making it less immersive for me, and I tend to play on faster speeds in CKII because looking the static map gets VERY boring, where as in EU IV I can imagine all my little citizens going about their seasonal activities as the weather changes. Kind of disappointing given I MUCH prefer the base gameplay of CKII in respect to roleplaying immersion.
The interfaces are both incredibly good at what they do in my opinion, I'd say theyre tied.
(None of this implies that CKII is a bad game or that PDS are bad people, just to make this clear.)
Personally I think EU4 looks better just because it is "streamlined", while CK2 is cut up into so many parts. Sure, it "makes sense" but it still doesn't look as good in my opinion.
EU4 looks a bit too cartoony for my tastes. CK2 is much more "crispy" in style as that one user put it.
Yes, CK2 looks better. But it does have this annoying single window behaviour that makes you start over all the time when looking up potential wives.
EU4 on the other hand has the annoying issue of having to close the diplo window to be able to switch back to province view.
EU4 on the other hand has the annoying issue of having to close the diplo window to be able to switch back to province view.
hmy:
Hmmm, personally I prefer EU IV in that regard. Both because it looks nicer and because the engine runs nicer.
I'd have to agree. CK2 looks more 'full' than EU4. IMO a solid strategy game has many menus within menus, which EU4 does not.
- 1
- Jul 23, 2007
- 12.812
- 38.539
yeah, having to click multiple buttons to get to what you need instead of one is very important
That's a great idea? Paradox should consider making a game for this market. Main feature would be countless menus upon menus upon menus. If one wants to declare war, he will need to go through no less than 16 sub-menus - in this game, we, in Paradox feature the Matryoshka Model for the very first time. Our inspiration came from the traditional Russian doll which contain other smaller dolls in it. That way, one can enjoy clicking the menus button and get a unique experience each time he does so.
The game will feature a bureaucratic office and you'll need to run your office, or else you're prone to drawn under piles of paper. Your success or pity failure will be determined on your ability to get to the right decision at time in the menu(s).
We proudly present - Max Weber: The Empire under the Desk - Rise of Bureaucracy
I personally feel declaration of war is rather too quick, have suffered too much of it on keyboard-shortcuts+ironman. menus are fine.
In Victoria Revolutions it is waaaay too easy to declare war. The first time I played, I started as Two Sicilies and I just clicked around me. I right clicked the pope, saw a declare war button and clicked it expecting a popup asking me if I really wanted to declare war on the Pope. That did not happen... I suddenly found myself in a war with almost all the other Italian minors with no allies and no experience in the game at all...
EU IV's natural map may be nicer when it comes to technobabble but when comparing political map modes, CK2s political map mode is much better. EU IV colours are excessively bright and bold and they look ridiculous. I like the mapmode colours in Victoria 2 as well. The thing is, the colours just don't look like the kind of colours you have on any actual map, historical or not.
Also many important actions such as: Sue for Peace and Recruit Unit are hidden away as buttons within tooltips within tooltips.
One thing to note is that it's much easier to characterise the CK era than the EU one. The interface in CK2 is recognisably medieval, whereas Eu spans to many distinct phase sin history, it's interface has a bit of all rather than comprehensively adopting one.
What? I just got EUIV after 350-ish hours of CK2 and I feel that EUIV looks MUCH better...
I used to think that EUIV looked really silly and exaggerated, and while it is exaggerated, after playing hours of the demo and watching LPs I think that overall it looks much nicer. Everything except the political mapmode looks nicer. I think the problem with the political mapmode in EUIV is that the colours look thick somehow, as if instead England's land being red, it's covered in thick red sludge. Going back to CK2 now is hard and since I'm so used to the exaggerated EUIV map, everything west of Anatolia(all east of Anatolia was changed in RoJ) looks really flat in CK2.
The main problem of CK2 after playing EU4 is how limited peace options are in CK2, but that's off topic.
The main problem of CK2 after playing EU4 is how limited peace options are in CK2, but that's off topic.
