Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What can we learn from EU4?

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.
Crusader Kings II 69869 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Lord_P

Lord_P

Field Marshal
67 Badges
Apr 17, 2014
3.894
3.355
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
To be honest, there are two things that Europa Universalis IV does better, in my honest opinion, than CK2.

Peace negotiations
Completely annihilating a country that looked at you funnily is OP, but France driving the English from France with one fell swoop is realistic.

Cores
De Jure is limiting and causes strange incidents, like Cornwall becoming a part of Norway. Maybe if some counties had multiple de jure owners?

What do you think?
 
Off the top of my head:

Warfare:
  • Whilst I like the underlining battle mechanics (and flank mechanics) of CK2, warfare feels less 'strategic' in CK2, and more about a numbers game. I do like the EU4 system of varied terrain in each province, and your generals manouver skill dictates which favorable terrain they fight on.
  • Warfare is more expensive in EU4. You can pretty much be constantly at war in CK2 with minimal impact to your treasury.
  • Attrition, Seasons, and drain on your manpower.

Other:
  • HRE Elector Mechanics.
  • Aggressive Expansion (NOTE: rather unpopular as currently implemented) and/or anti-blobbing mechanics.
  • Attach unit to this army toggle
  • Boarding transports toggle
  • In general the warfare AI seems a bit better in EU4.
  • Less ping pong battles.
 
The peace negotiations of EUIV are far superior to the rigid CB-based system in CK2

However there are not many things IMO... EUIV is kind of a mess right now with balancing issues as other posters have mentioned. Not just the AE but also the nonsensical coalitions, rival nations that make no sense, ridiculous tax imbalance between Western Europe and everywhere else, OP "lucky nations" that don't need any legs up because they tend to do very well even without lucky status (imagine if the HRE or ERE in CK2 had morale and tax buffs on top of their starting power, and that's basically the balance of EUIV), etc.

I stopped playing and will come back to it after a little while when it's more settled.
 
Last edited:
DaveDash said:
  • Whilst I like the underlining battle mechanics (and flank mechanics) of CK2, warfare feels less 'strategic' in CK2, and more about a numbers game. I do like the EU4 system of varied terrain in each province, and your generals manouver skill dictates which favorable terrain they fight on.
  • HRE Elector Mechanics.
Click to expand...

1: Isn't this already in CK2? We have terraine and generals with traits.
2: No! The EU4 HRE is good for the EU era. But it's bad for CK2! Different time, diferent HRE.
 
Thure said:
The EU4 HRE is good for the EU era. But it's bad for CK2! Different time, diferent HRE.
Click to expand...
The Golden Bull was issued in the year 1356 (you know, the one with the electors), so I think we should have an ability to something like that in the game.

But, balance wise, the Holy Roman Emperor was never the immortal omnipotent superman that Heinrich Salian (curse his name) is in CK2. The real Heinrich was one of the major players in the Investiture Controversy, which is represented in CK2 by "HRE conquers Rome".
 
Two things I learnt from EU4...

1. Recent patches dramatically change gameplay (in both directions, but it feels like the bad outweights the good changes)
2. EU4 forums feels/seems more hositle than CK2's forums

Dukjlanin said:
The peace negotiations of EUIV are far superior to the rigid CB-based system in CK2

However there are not many things IMO... EUIV is kind of a mess right now with balancing issues as other posters have mentioned. Not just the AE but also the nonsensical coalitions, rival nations that make no sense, ridiculous tax imbalance between Western Europe and everywhere else, OP "lucky nations" that don't need any legs up because they tend to do very well even without lucky status (imagine if the HRE or ERE in CK2 had morale and tax buffs on top of their starting power, and that's basically the balance of EUIV), etc.

I stopped playing and will come back to it after a little while when it's more settled.
Click to expand...

You might need to wait a while as they recently posted the 1.7 patchnotes and it is very hostile on the forums and some of the changes have pissed off a lot of people (i.e. changes to truces).
 
smeggy said:
Diplomacy and multiplayer. In general EU4 just works, it's a much more polished game, and is a challange.
Click to expand...

There are quite a lot of people that would disagree with that sentiment.


I believe, while they do have a point, some of the complaints are towards features that make the game a challenge. Plus I've never really had an issue with coalitions or AE.

But of course the game is unbalanced, it doesn't have the development of EUIII of 5 to 6 years and even CKII has had almost three years in development.

Context is important. When EUIII first came out there was mass out pouring of people complaining that the game was unbalanced/buggy and shallow in gameplay.
 
Thure said:
1: Isn't this already in CK2? We have terraine and generals with traits.
Click to expand...

I think they mean that a single province can have multiple terrain types, and the general impacts where the fighting actually takes place--whereas a province in CKII is wholly defined by one type of terrain.
 
I feel like CK2 has better combat mechanics, because you can diversify your choices far more than in EUIV. Of course i could just be that I feel like I have a better grasp of CK2 mechanics. I think the problem is more, that throwing your army away is worse in EUIV than in CK2 since manpower regeneration takes longer than in CK2 (or atleast levy available from vassals) and if you completly loose them is goes downhill faster. Also you can throw a high amount of troops at something, but won't win necessarily. If you create a archer based retinue and you run into a knight based army you can outweigh them by 3:2 and still loose if your starting volley doesn't kill them fast enough.
Ofc those troops are more for sieging, but then that just shows the difference to EUIV. I can't really say that you can make an army composition that's good for sieges and sieges are so random sometimes in EUIV.

About Cores. If Norway were to conquer Cornwall in EUIV it should be in reach to core it and those cores work then pretty much the same as de jure territory, unless you force them to give up their cores in a second war. Only real thing that would be nice is peace negotiations.
 
I like the fact that you can form Coalitions against larger powers, and force better terms after beating your enemy to a pulp.

I also like that you can lead your enemy on a merry dance and wear his armies down to nothing - but that mechanic is currently a bit overpowered.

Otherwise, I feel like CKII makes more logical sense in most cases - when I export a complete Roman Empire, I don't need to declare a "rival" until I've discovered China and have a border with the Ming/Manchu.
 
This might sound a bit odd, given the furor over the truce timer changes over on the EU4 forum, but I can't help but wonder if a similar idea might work better with CK2's more limited CB system. It has always struck me as slightly odd that the truce time for a crusade is the same as for a county claim war, anyway.
 
When I titled the thread "What can we learn from EU4?" I didn't mean the broken balancing, I meant the mechanics.
 
Wolfmaster1979 said:
Two things I learnt from EU4...

1. Recent patches dramatically change gameplay (in both directions, but it feels like the bad outweights the good changes)
2. EU4 forums feels/seems more hositle than CK2's forums



You might need to wait a while as they recently posted the 1.7 patchnotes and it is very hostile on the forums and some of the changes have pissed off a lot of people (i.e. changes to truces).
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, when I say I'll come back, I mean when it's 2.something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back