Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Crusader Kings II or Europa Universalis IV

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.
ali.usman

ali.usman

Captain
13 Badges
Jan 8, 2015
332
13
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Humble Paradox Bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
Hey guys

sorry for a real noob question. I am getting into some RTS games and I think I am going to love it (last time when I played RTS was ages ago when I was a little kid, can't even remember the name) . I saw two most contributed titles from paradox Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis IV.

Off course I can buy both and try them out but what is the difference between these two as I checked out videos and they look pretty similar.

Please recommend rts game for a noob


FYI I am also thinking to try Rome II (and other total war series) as I heard that they have a great battle system but unfortunately its TBS which worries me.

Anyways please recommend a great strategy game from paradox for a noob
Cheers
 
I would recomend to start with Crusader kings II, as it is much more complete thatn EUIV, EUIV is a fresh game, and requires 2-4 DLCs more to make it complete, while CK II is 2 years old i think and is nearly finished.

As well, i personally like CK2 more than EU4.

Moreover, in timeframe CK2 is earlier than EU, as well, after finishing playing CK u can exports saves to EU in order to continue...

so... CK2.

IN CK you caontrol dysnaty, you have sons, relatives and so on, they have traits... cool system, while in EU you just control country, and no dynsty or family system in any kind

In terms or Rome 2 - i don't reccomend.
I hate their campaign map. Battle map is not good as well, because soldiers fighting in very unrealistic.
Wait for Attila, it will be 5x times better than Rome 2
 
Only the campaign in the Total War series is turned based, the battles are real time.

Pdx games are false "RTS", but still some people might think it's RTS, anyway out of EUIV and CK2, I'd play EUIV first. CK2 is more RPG-ish, it's fun but if you really want strategy you should try EUIV or Vic2.
 
Last edited:
If you want GSG (Grand Strategy), try EU4, it delivers what you are searching for and is a typical game in the genre and the PDS flagship title. CK2 is far more better, but for the newbie who wants GSG it is more RPG and strategy aspect is less predominant in it, so EU4 is for you. Same with Victoria 2 who is more simulating and etc, and less about pure GSG like EU4. And no, they are not RTS (Real Time Strategy) more than anything else really.
 
ali.usman said:
Hey guys

sorry for a real noob question. I am getting into some RTS games and I think I am going to love it (last time when I played RTS was ages ago when I was a little kid, can't even remember the name) . I saw two most contributed titles from paradox Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis IV.

Off course I can buy both and try them out but what is the difference between these two as I checked out videos and they look pretty similar.

Please recommend rts game for a noob


FYI I am also thinking to try Rome II (and other total war series) as I heard that they have a great battle system but unfortunately its TBS which worries me.

Anyways please recommend a great strategy game from paradox for a noob
Cheers
Click to expand...

EUIV or CKII aren't really RTS. Or at least, not in the same manner as Starcraft or AoE. They are grand strategy games, with some RPG-elements thrown in for CKII.

I'd advise trying a demo of both games before taking any decision.
 
I would hesitate to call any PDS game an RTS. To me that is more along the lines of Starcraft, Command & Conquer and the recently released Grey Goo. The difference is mainly the level of abstraction, which is significantly higher in PDS games. You do not control individual units, fight individual battles, or have a deep roster of units to build, etc.

That said, between CK2 and EU4 I consider CK2 to be the better game. It is also the game that is least like an RTS (and remember: neither of them are what I would call an RTS to begin with), so I have a hard time recommending it to you despite it being good. It is more like a grand strategy RPG (GSRPG anyone?).

My advice: Watch some videos. quill18 is pretty good.

I think that some of my first suggestions would be closer to what you want, but PDS make good games and you may still enjoy them. Keep in mind that they tend to have amazing sales at regular intervals. I would advice against buying whole collections without first trying out the base game.
 
Last edited:
Thought this discussion was really interesting. I think that's part of the reason why our real-time games work in so many cases, is because it is not fully realtime. In the team, we usually do talk about our games as real time strategy. But in the classic real time strategy game, you gather resources, build a base and then use the base and resources to build an army to kill your enemies, roughly said.

Our games here at Paradox Development Studios games work rather differently, much closer to a traditional wargame than the classical RTS. In fact, probably the only thing the games really shares with an RTS is the fact that the clock is always ticking, although we kindly allow you as a player pause.

We have referred to it, almost like a joke, as Continuous Time Strategy, since it is a strategy game that occurs in a continuous timeframe without turns. You have the freedom to take whatever time you want to think about consequences and possibilities. Your mind is doing all the exciting things, trying to see outcome and make decisions in your road to power, and that's the reaction we want to reach. It's important to get the player's total brain engaged and not just the tips of their fingers, right?
 
Regina said:
Thought this discussion was really interesting. I think that's part of the reason why our real-time games work in so many cases, is because it is not fully realtime. In the team, we usually do talk about our games as real time strategy. But in the classic real time strategy game, you gather resources, build a base and then use the base and resources to build an army to kill your enemies, roughly said.

Our games here at Paradox Development Studios games work rather differently, much closer to a traditional wargame than the classical RTS. In fact, probably the only thing the games really shares with an RTS is the fact that the clock is always ticking, although we kindly allow you as a player pause.

We have referred to it, almost like a joke, as Continuous Time Strategy, since it is a strategy game that occurs in a continuous timeframe without turns. You have the freedom to take whatever time you want to think about consequences and possibilities. Your mind is doing all the exciting things, trying to see outcome and make decisions in your road to power, and that's the reaction we want to reach. It's important to get the player's total brain engaged and not just the tips of their fingers, right?
Click to expand...

But honestly Regina, admit that you prefer CK2 and Victoria 2 when compared to EU4. ;)
 
Last edited:
I personally enjoy EU4 over CK2 right now, and think its a "simpler" game to get to know and learn, others may disagree but.

CK2 is more indepth if you like that sort of thing.
 
Regina said:
We have referred to it, almost like a joke, as Continuous Time Strategy, since it is a strategy game that occurs in a continuous timeframe without turns. You have the freedom to take whatever time you want to think about consequences and possibilities. Your mind is doing all the exciting things, trying to see outcome and make decisions in your road to power, and that's the reaction we want to reach. It's important to get the player's total brain engaged and not just the tips of their fingers, right?
Click to expand...

You manage even more than that. I was heart brocken when my kind, zealous and awesome 90-year old ruler was assasinated wy his own son ! (Multiplayer game, that son was played by my brother. You guys are destroying our relationship)
 
CK2 is more complete even without DLCs, if you compare the base game of the first version and the first it's very different. However, CK2 and EU4 arent exactly "RTS", consider them an "RTS with pause", you can do lots of things when paused(it's required actually). The best term is "grand startegy", but i reccomend you nevertheless.

For Total war series: they are great, but don't try rome 2, try some older total war games like Medieval 2 total war.
 
LordLoko said:
For Total war series: they are great, but don't try rome 2, try some older total war games like Medieval 2 total war.
Click to expand...

The last Total War I bought was Napoleon, and that was a disappointment. Medieval II was great however, and I've heard that Rome II isn't bad now that it has been patched.
 
Ach, there's more to 'RTS' than just the endless Dune-2 ancestors that pop up everywhere. Paradox games are far more RTS (constant flow of time, adjustments as you go) than they are a turn-based strategy, and even in 'archetype' RTS games there are still time increments, they're just very small :).

That said, it is good that the OP knows that if they're looking for a command-and-conquer/Starcraft type experience, this isn't the place to find it (decent examples of modern 'Dune 2-style' RTS games are Starcraft 2, Wargame: Red Dragon and RUSE).

If you're looking for top-notch grand strategy (and strategy is not the same as war - students of Sun Tzu would well remark that the best strategists avoid war as much as they can), then CK2 and EU4 are both great, but both different.

CK2 - it's all about your family, and the strategy is as much realm-building as family and relationship management (the role-playing side). You still raise levies (medieval armies), go on wars and conquer territories, but you also need to pay close attention to how your family is going and who holds which titles within your realm (as you personally have a limit on what you can hold).

EU4 is about your nation, and far more focussed on diplomacy, warfare and trade. You play as a nation, and develop your provinces, national ideas, alliances and claims for territory, build colonies, compete for trade and go to war to expand your empire.

As for which to go with, I'd go for whichever appeals to you - both are great games, and everyone has different favourites (I prefer EU4 m'self, but I've actually played more CK2, as it's been around longer and I tend to alternate between the two). Recommend hitting the Wikis for information and guidance, as both games have plenty of mechanics to master, and starting off with a relatively small nation/family to learn the ropes. Whichever you go with, hope you have a great time :).
 
If you're a RP kind of guy, go with CK2.
If you're not into RP, go with EU4.

I fall into the latter category and I much prefer EU4. The CK2 mechanics just don't interest me as much.
 
Six main considerations must be taken into effect:

1) Do you prefer role-playing or pure strategy? If the former, a point for CK2. If the latter, a point for EU4.
2) Do you prefer the medieval or early modern time periods? If the former, a point for CK2. If the latter, a point for EU4.
3) Do you want to maintain the illusion that you're a good person? If not, play CK2.
4) Are you a sadomasochist? If so, play HoI3.
5) Do you have a doctorate in advanced calculus and/or economics? If yes, play Vicky2.
6) Do you hate nomads? If yes, play EU4.

(But seriously, the main difference is that CK2 has roleplaying elements while EU4 is "purer" strategy. Base it on that).
 
The main difference between EU IV and CK II is that in EU IV you play a nation. It doesn't matter if revolutionairy rebels pop up and turn your kingdom into a republic, you still play as long as your nation exists. In CK II you play a dynasty. It doesn't matter if your nation still exists and prospers if it's not ruled by a member of your dynasty.
Imho CK II allows much more role-playing and micromanagement inside your realm, EU IV works a bit better as a 'conquest game'. I personally like both almost equally. But I started with EU IV.
Also the time frames of these two games depict completely different era's. To simplify CK II depicts the era of catapults, shields and swords, while EU IV depicts the era of cannons, bayonettes and muskets.
 
I like more EUIV; after much time spent on it, I can still set tough challenges to me and fail eventually. CK2 was fun to, but once mastered, it is a breeze. It's not really RTS indeed, thankfully because I spend much time with the game paused.

I like Total war too, though it's completely different than Paradox; in Total war, the fun comes from battles to me the rest is just there to choose how battles will be arranged; with Paradox, battles are just a part of the greater picture, where diplomacy really shines; beetween nations in EUIV, or characters in CK2. I would advise you to get both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis as the feel is completely different. Older games are nice too and cheap by now; I had good fun with EU:Rome which somewhat mixes both EU feel about nations with some management of characters where you want for exemple to use good military leaders, but not too much, otherwise they will gain support of your army and revolt. Victoria in the other hand allows for a much more complex economical model.

All in all, if you have to choose just one game, I'd say Europa Universalis.
 
Last edited:
EU4 game you play as a country. CK2 game you play as a character, or more precisely a lineage of characters. I spent more time on EU4, though they are both very fun. I can't say which is better, but because CK2 is so deep and complex, I will tell you a quick story.

A CK2 beginning:
Start as Duke of Portucale, vassal to King of Asturias and Galicia, a man of war. Marry your son to a Princess of Asturias and they soon have a child, your grandson.

You attack the Ummayad realm to the south when you see it shatter into civil war and you take Lisbon and its Duchy from one of the rebel factions. Your character dies in combat and your son takes the Duchy, and becomes your new character.

Your wife's father dies, murdered by unknown assailants, and your brother-in-law takes the throne of Asturias and becomes your liege, but your wife also gets a claim on the Kingdom at the death of the former King.

You are a religious character, so during the peace you decide to go on pilgrimage to Rome and gain piety. The King of France, ally to the new King of Asturias declares war on the weakened Ummayads and brings your liege into the fight once again. This war does not concern you. You wait while your army regains strength. Time goes on. Your wife dies and her claim dies with it, but your son inherits a weak claim on the Kingdom... now your liege dies in the new war and is replaced by his infant son. France wins the Conquest of Barcelona.

You decide you want to follow a path of war instead of the path of God... Your young liege is underage, allowing you to press your son's weak claim on the Kingdom, so you strike. You win the war to install your son to the Throne of Asturias, and your heir becomes your liege. He grows to manhood and takes a wife from the realm of France. She is a great spy and helps protect your son from all schemes to usurp his throne, but one day you die of poisoning... your daughter-in-law was discovered in the plot! ...and you begin to play as your son, your heir.

You are now King of Asturias, Duke of Portucale and Bajadoz, with holdings all over the eastern coast of Portugal and north of Spain. Your wife is a master spy who killed your father, whose land you inherited, and you have yet to have a son. Your heir is an uncle of a different dynasty, if you can't have a child before you die, the game will end. As soon as you can, you change your way of life from war to family and fertility, you need children more than you need extra provinces. Until the dynasty is secure, children are your top priority.

Within forty years of a four hundred year game (or a seven hundred year game if you start at the earliest start date!), the game has barely begun.

...or will your game end because of a childless King?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back