Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why not combine CK and EU?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Novacat said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
And in the real EU era, dynasty=state. Most 'states' up till the end of the EU era were basically patchworks of domains ruled by the same ruler.
 
Novacat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why are cannons a problem? Couldn't they be a unit with high skirmish power, no pursuit power, and low melee power? And even in the CK period, basic cannons and hand cannons should already be in the game in the mid-15th century.

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why the 1444 start date is so absurd in EU. Dynastic politics were a defining feature of world politics for centuries after 1444. EU could absolutely benefit from a few CK elements without modeling every little dynastic member, like if it only tracked your main line or something.
 
How are CK2's character-driven mechanics supposed to work with colonization? How are dynasties and trade companies supposed to mesh? Are parliaments just going to be ignored?
 
This thread is pointless.

Paradox would never do this...
 
EU4 does not properly model it's timeline.
CK2 does not properly model it's timeline.
Duh. Combine them into a bigger game, make the problems worse :D
I can tell we have a real thinker here, guys.
 
If neither models their timeline even close to accurately (and I'm inclined to agree on that), then what's the harm in mashing them together like hydrogen and oxygen? Perhaps a higher level of abstraction so the player can focus on the grand strategy is what the games actually need. In CK2 especially it baffles me why we even have control of our armies. I appreciate that it's one of those rare times that I as a player actually have anything to do, but shouldn't it be the commander's job to move the armies? I mean, I don't arrange foreign marriages for my vassals, do I? Perhaps trying to figure out how to make such a long game work would allow the perspective to be high up enough for us to be concerned with POPs and economic productivity rather than trying to bait the enemy into attacking us in a mountainous province.
 
GC13 said:
If neither models their timeline even close to accurately (and I'm inclined to agree on that), then what's the harm in mashing them together like hydrogen and oxygen? Perhaps a higher level of abstraction so the player can focus on the grand strategy is what the games actually need. In CK2 especially it baffles me why we even have control of our armies. I appreciate that it's one of those rare times that I as a player actually have anything to do, but shouldn't it be the commander's job to move the armies? I mean, I don't arrange foreign marriages for my vassals, do I? Perhaps trying to figure out how to make such a long game work would allow the perspective to be high up enough for us to be concerned with POPs and economic productivity rather than trying to bait the enemy into attacking us in a mountainous province.
Click to expand...

At that point you're playing Economy Simulator, which would be a very very niche title.
 
Well, that's what grand strategy is (also managing the relations and alliances between states). It's all about ensuring your strategic position in the long-term. What's wrong with playing Economy Simulator anyway? Victoria 2 is Economy Simulator and it's really fun.

Marching troops around the map isn't even particularly fun, it's just the only thing you really have to do in these games. You'd still direct wars in grand strategy games, it's just that the challenge would be in preparing for them rather than directing troops in them. You'd probably appoint commanders with various traits that let you know how they'd campaign, and then set them off with a broad goal.
 
GC13 said:
If neither models their timeline even close to accurately (and I'm inclined to agree on that), then what's the harm in mashing them together like hydrogen and oxygen? Perhaps a higher level of abstraction so the player can focus on the grand strategy is what the games actually need. In CK2 especially it baffles me why we even have control of our armies. I appreciate that it's one of those rare times that I as a player actually have anything to do, but shouldn't it be the commander's job to move the armies? I mean, I don't arrange foreign marriages for my vassals, do I? Perhaps trying to figure out how to make such a long game work would allow the perspective to be high up enough for us to be concerned with POPs and economic productivity rather than trying to bait the enemy into attacking us in a mountainous province.
Click to expand...

That's because stupid AI would destroy our armies and people would rage.
 
Well of course the game wouldn't model the exact positioning of the armies. "No, what are you doing?!? Don't attack over the river into the mountains!" would indeed by incredibly frustrating. Since the player wouldn't be controlling it in that level of detail, though, it could be more abstracted. It would be more like "Duke York is currently: Besieging Fort X (8 days)" and then a little status window telling you the state of his army as well as any enemy armies nearby.

As an added bonus, since the armies aren't on the map anymore it will be easier to model a key historical reality: just because armies were near each other didn't mean they would fight. Except in very rare circumstances, battles could only take place when both commanders wanted them to. Do you just want to harass the enemy and don't want to risk the loss of your troops? Appoint a cautious commander. Assuming he's not an awful military mind, you're guaranteed to have an army come marching back at the end of the campaigning season.
 
To the nay-sayers. This will come out at some point in the future, games are getting more and more complex. Why resist the inevitable and discourage experimentation? Imagine the second or third iteration of this megagame doing it right and succesfully combining all elements. I would play a game like that for decades to come.
 
I'd much rather that the games differentiate further than combine. The games should reflect the major themes of their eras rather than including superfluous elements of the others.

For example, EU4 should emphasize:
-Trade
-Exploration
-Colonization

Adding elements of feudalism or personal relationships would district from the main themes of the game and make it ultimately a worse game.
 
Europa Crusaderversalis?
Kings of Europa?
Europa Kings?
 
From a business point of view, these should be two separate titles. It covers a wider market.
I belong to those who are trying to enjoy CK2, but still find EU a more fun game, and with much more clear and transparent gameplay mechanics.

Seriously, i prefer to deal with Aggressive Expansion, Overextension, Coalition, Coring and rebels rather than playing the game on speed 5 looking for an opportunity to get a claim on a neighbouring province, either through fabrication or some dynasty manipulations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back