Why not combine CK and EU?

[TheRomanRuler]

Why not combine these 2 games? I can`t think of any reason besides need for a new game. Europa Universalis 5: Dynasty does not sound too bad either. Crusader Kings sounds pretty great tough, would be shame to loose that. Hm, i guess name is not only issue :blush: ? De Jure could be dealt with cores, many think EU4 needs family tree, so why not just immedietely go full in? In early game it would work like in CK2, but in late game importance would be reduced, but coups and assasinations are still part of the politics today, but ATM they are completely missing in EU4. CK2 on other hand does not have idea system and many other systems, like something for Holy Roman Empire, in game it is just 1 united nation with loose leadership. Levy system would be perfect for later Napoleonic era that EU4 includes, just with added manpower system from EU4. Retinues are pretty much same as building forces in EU4 etc...

Why not? :excl: And no, i am not going to suggest why not combine Victoria 2 and EU4, or Vic2 and HOI4, those would be way too different.

 

[TaintedRuins]

Because we don't all own supercomputers.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Because we don't all own supercomputers.

Then why are you not working to build time machine?

 

[Purpleistheblue]

I like the different styles. Plus, if you're new to paradox you can start at CK2, learn the basics of it, and slowly move up.

 

[Novacat]

The problem is that of design. EU4 and CK2 have a number of conflicting design elements which means it would be almost impossible to merge the two together without one dominating the other. Considering Paradox's attitude that EU4 is their flagship title, it would not end well for CK2 which, personally, I like better. One specific example is that in EU4 you play as Countries, in CK2 you play as Dynasties.

While it is true that EU does some things much much better than CK, and CK does other things much much better than EU, a better solution would probably be to port those solutions as opposed to merging the two.

I like the different styles. Plus, if you're new to paradox you can start at CK2, learn the basics of it, and slowly move up.

The difficulty is about the same, CK2 is much easier to blob up but also much easier to lose everything.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I like the different styles. Plus, if you're new to paradox you can start at CK2, learn the basics of it, and slowly move up.

EUIV is fun to play at present as a form of Risk+++, which allows you to get to the end date, but it lacks emergent storytelling; I guess for some players that's a good thing.

I find EUIV is a better competitive MP game than CK2, even if it isn't quite as fun. Many people complain about the lack of peace-time options, and the truth is that there isn't much they could add without throwing family trees in and making it more like CK2; EUIV is a war simulator.

So to summarise: two types of games, two types of players.

Considering Paradox's attitude that EU4 is their flagship title

I recall Johan mentioning in a live stream at some point in the last year or so that Paradox do not see one flagship title, but a few; HoI, CK and EU.

 

[TaintedRuins]

Then why are you not working to build time machine?

Wha-?

I recall Johan mentioning in a live stream at some point in the last year or so that Paradox do not see one flagship title, but a few; HoI, CK and EU.

Tell that to the size of the dev teams.

 

[darthfanta]

What the perfect paradox game needs:

The combat system of EUIV

The dynasties and characters of CK2

The economy of Victoria 2

The different populations of Victoria 2

The ability to delegate your armies to the AI like in HOI3

The long times span of CK2

 

[zkajo]

I don't think it would be a good idea to merge these. They both have great mechanics which fit their own periods. I think the Devs did a good job at creating the tribal system in CK2, which would not work well when transferred to EU4 for example. Intrigue and all that, whilst you are trying to maintain an economy etc... no, just no...

In CK2 you are a person. You play as a ruler of a dynasty, and want the best for your kids (well, sometimes. Other times you just kill them instead). In EU4, you play as a government at the time... in a way. I think... it's a bit difficult to define. In Vicky, you play as a state (that's how I see it). It would be better to create good converters that allow you to transport your save game from one title to the other. That would be best imo, as long as it works better than the current CK2 one

 

[Spartanlemur]

Tell that to the size of the dev teams.

The size of the dev teams reflects the release date. EUIV, as the most recent release still needs a lot of work and so has the second largest dev team, while HoI4 and RM have the largest, as they have yet to be released. Meanwhile CK2 only has a few people because it has been out for almost three years and has had more DLC than any other PDS game. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems pretty reasonable to me why CK2 currently has the smallest dev team.

 

[Novacat]

I would argue that CK2 probably needs more work/polish done to it at this point than EU4. Especially after EU4's mega-patch that came with Art of War.

 

[Zolotaya]

I would argue that CK2 probably needs more work/polish done to it at this point than EU4. Especially after EU4's mega-patch that came with Art of War.

With the increase of the Q/A team to 12 for CK2 being done, the issue of polish/bug hunting is being addressed. The size of the dev team really has nothing to do with this issue unless more systems and mechanics are going to be overhauled as they were in EU iv.

Not only that but there is always cross-team support being done on both sides all the time.

 

[Mikalos]

The size of the dev teams reflects the release date. EUIV, as the most recent release still needs a lot of work and so has the second largest dev team, while HoI4 and RM have the largest, as they have yet to be released. Meanwhile CK2 only has a few people because it has been out for almost three years and has had more DLC than any other PDS game. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems pretty reasonable to me why CK2 currently has the smallest dev team.

the irony being that of them all CK2 still needs the most amount of work

 

[Novacat]

Unless Paradox does QA differently, I am fairly certain that QA do not fix bugs, only report and document them. I would also argue that the moddability of CK2 has fallen behind quite significantly in comparison to EU4. I did a double take when I looked at EU4's script recently and found that the diplomatic action triggers have already been exported.

 

[WeissRaben]

EU could be partitioned between CK and Victoria at the 1648 line, really, but both would need extensive additions to work out fine. I'm more than ok with EU4 being a game on its own merits, but it needs to borrow some depth from the other two.

 

[darthfanta]

EU could be partitioned between CK and Victoria at the 1648 line, really, but both would need extensive additions to work out fine. I'm more than ok with EU4 being a game on its own merits, but it needs to borrow some depth from the other two.

Might be a good idea. Victoria always seemed a bit short.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I don`t think Victoria should be combined with Europa Universalis, it is all about population, and is simply too different style to fit into EU. Sure Paradox could make Victoria + EU+CK game, but i think EU should just be combined with Crusader Kings, other 2 titles being Victoria and Hearts of Iron.

Wha-?

1. Build time machine
2. Go to future
3. Get a PC
4. Come back
5. Profit, you know have supercomputer!

 

[EU3NOOB]

EU could be partitioned between CK and Victoria at the 1648 line, really, but both would need extensive additions to work out fine. I'm more than ok with EU4 being a game on its own merits, but it needs to borrow some depth from the other two.

Might be a good idea. Victoria always seemed a bit short.

*sigh*

Only Poland can into Partition. EUIV cannot into Poland, cannot into Partition!

Seriously though, this is a terrible idea. Victoria II cannot into much more than a century before the economy goes physcho.

 

[szmik]

I think CK2 mechanics would fit well until about Reformation.
While I'd like Vicky2 economy in EU universe, I don't think it's feasible in a single game. Imho it's almost impossible to simulate it so well as to get any good (balanced) results 200+ years later. Or maybe it would be possible at an enormous cost.

 

[Novacat]

I think CK2 mechanics would fit well until about Reformation.
While I'd like Vicky2 economy in EU universe, I don't think it's feasible in a single game. Imho it's almost impossible to simulate it so well as to get any good (balanced) results 200+ years later. Or maybe it would be possible at an enormous cost.

I would argue that CK2 would fit up until the introduction of cannons in the late 1400s, which is a problem because CK2's combat mechanics simply cannot model them at all. That means that, at most, CK2 end date could only be extended about 30 years or so. That means that EU has more or less hit the start date exactly.

On the flipside, though, EU really overextended itself covering the Napoleon era, which, IMO, should have been a part of Vichy as opposed to EU. EU's mechanics start falling apart in 1780 with the Industrial Revolution. The ending event for EU should have been the American Revolutionary War as opposed to the French Revolution.

but i think EU should just be combined with Crusader Kings

The problem is that EU is inherantly about states, wheras CK is inherantly about characters and dynasties. That will be almost impossible to reconcile without completely erasing one of the games and leaving a merged game as either Crusader Kings with Europe Universalis elements or Europa Universalis with Crusader Kings elements.