Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

After Crusader Kings II I can't play anymore EUIV

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.
I just transitioned from a CK2 game to EUIV and what really struck me is how much emptier the game feels. There's just a lot less going on at any given time, so I spend most of my time waiting for constructions to finish or truces to end or monarch points to accumulate.
 
I actually the one, who played a lot of CK2 before trying EU4, while buying eu4 before ck2. And I think that CK2 is more appealing game for me.
I've seen some playthroughs (it's the same way I got to CK2), but didn't touch the game.
My first experience was close to ragequit, and every time it was something like nest of microstacks carpeting your land behind the fort, and you don't even know, how they got there (and when you see that some of that ****s actually just walked through your fort protected provinces, its a pause for at least a day), or when in somewhat better situation you roll a bad dice three times in a row and get destroyed because of that. And every time when you close up your troops to get a clear advantage, AI magically knows that your big army goes there from miles away. Combining with the fact that wars is the main source of entertainment, experience was devastating. Six month later I played as custom nation, and then as a Ming (full cycle, from 1444 to 1821 >_<). Have no trouble beating people - have no trouble with the game. Got bored, started as Novgorod, and found out that if you break up your ties with republican ways of veche republic (because it's obvious way to get an edge in troop limit to beat muskovy), you'll never become tsardom (ಠ_ಠ), and in order to get it, you should restart your campaign. Nevermind the fact that new ottos, with their new railroaded quests, for some reason very eager to expand into middle Europe and Siberia, if Russia didn't blob here already. Maybe PDX could give them some free claims in Egypt or something?
Micro-management tedium, glaring human-only rules, unnecessary features where they're unneeded, and lack of them when they're, inflexibility / inaccessibility of special things, complete lockout, just because you slip somewhere in the middle - that's what breaks the game for me.
EU4 is like X-COM on harder difficulty (play a mission, or two, and make a pause, to relax from long and stressing missions), but on larger scale (a campaign or two, and take a pause for a month or a half of year).
While in CK2, to the moment when you feel like you finished with your campaign, you already have some wacky bizarre ideas for a new one.
 
Avil said:
I actually the one, who played a lot of CK2 before trying EU4, while buying eu4 before ck2. And I think that CK2 is more appealing game for me.
I've seen some playthroughs (it's the same way I got to CK2), but didn't touch the game.
My first experience was close to ragequit, and every time it was something like nest of microstacks carpeting your land behind the fort, and you don't even know, how they got there (and when you see that some of that ****s actually just walked through your fort protected provinces, its a pause for at least a day), or when in somewhat better situation you roll a bad dice three times in a row and get destroyed because of that. And every time when you close up your troops to get a clear advantage, AI magically knows that your big army goes there from miles away. Combining with the fact that wars is the main source of entertainment, experience was devastating. Six month later I played as custom nation, and then as a Ming (full cycle, from 1444 to 1821 >_<). Have no trouble beating people - have no trouble with the game. Got bored, started as Novgorod, and found out that if you break up your ties with republican ways of veche republic (because it's obvious way to get an edge in troop limit to beat muskovy), you'll never become tsardom (ಠ_ಠ), and in order to get it, you should restart your campaign. Nevermind the fact that new ottos, with their new railroaded quests, for some reason very eager to expand into middle Europe and Siberia, if Russia didn't blob here already. Maybe PDX could give them some free claims in Egypt or something?
Micro-management tedium, glaring human-only rules, unnecessary features where they're unneeded, and lack of them when they're, inflexibility / inaccessibility of special things, complete lockout, just because you slip somewhere in the middle - that's what breaks the game for me.
EU4 is like X-COM on harder difficulty (play a mission, or two, and make a pause, to relax from long and stressing missions), but on larger scale (a campaign or two, and take a pause for a month or a half of year).
While in CK2, to the moment when you feel like you finished with your campaign, you already have some wacky bizarre ideas for a new one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I ended up ditching the EU4 game because I was bored out of my skull and had a bunch of crazy CK2 ideas.
 
They are different EUIV is a grand strategy; CKII is a Strategy RPG.
 
Avil said:
I actually the one, who played a lot of CK2 before trying EU4, while buying eu4 before ck2. And I think that CK2 is more appealing game for me.
I've seen some playthroughs (it's the same way I got to CK2), but didn't touch the game.
My first experience was close to ragequit, and every time it was something like nest of microstacks carpeting your land behind the fort, and you don't even know, how they got there (and when you see that some of that ****s actually just walked through your fort protected provinces, its a pause for at least a day), or when in somewhat better situation you roll a bad dice three times in a row and get destroyed because of that. And every time when you close up your troops to get a clear advantage, AI magically knows that your big army goes there from miles away. Combining with the fact that wars is the main source of entertainment, experience was devastating. Six month later I played as custom nation, and then as a Ming (full cycle, from 1444 to 1821 >_<). Have no trouble beating people - have no trouble with the game. Got bored, started as Novgorod, and found out that if you break up your ties with republican ways of veche republic (because it's obvious way to get an edge in troop limit to beat muskovy), you'll never become tsardom (ಠ_ಠ), and in order to get it, you should restart your campaign. Nevermind the fact that new ottos, with their new railroaded quests, for some reason very eager to expand into middle Europe and Siberia, if Russia didn't blob here already. Maybe PDX could give them some free claims in Egypt or something?
Micro-management tedium, glaring human-only rules, unnecessary features where they're unneeded, and lack of them when they're, inflexibility / inaccessibility of special things, complete lockout, just because you slip somewhere in the middle - that's what breaks the game for me.
EU4 is like X-COM on harder difficulty (play a mission, or two, and make a pause, to relax from long and stressing missions), but on larger scale (a campaign or two, and take a pause for a month or a half of year).
While in CK2, to the moment when you feel like you finished with your campaign, you already have some wacky bizarre ideas for a new one.
Click to expand...

Ottomans seem to take out Mamluks pretty regularly for me, say 80% of the time.
 
CK2 isn’t that abstract. While in EU4 I have reaources like Mana in CK i have Resources like kids, sisters, cousins. While i have to imagine what burd mana is in EU in CK I know. While in EU a general is just some random dude I know nithing about in CK2 it’s a character with history. A potential enemy but also a valuable resource.

That’s what makes CK for me the game to play. I’m in the the world I’m playing.
 
Shinkuro Yukinari said:
Tbf, EU4 is basically a blobbing simulator at this point. The fact that people legit achieve World Conquests with the most ridiculous starts is a testament to it.
It would be cool to see CK2 go as far as 1800, while implementing colonisation mechanics and such
Click to expand...
Honestly once you can defeat the entire world in CK2 with a stable succession system and set up a few big viceroys and keep feeding them(you can do this so much so they will never be unhappy and use your spymaster and assassinations to deal with any credible faction threats) you can easily achieve a world conquest, I would say if anything it is easier to do it in CK2(I will admit it is pretty boring to have to defeat the last few random cities,baronies and churches).
 
EU4 is pretty much dead to me too. Way too mindless, way too much RNG, way too much cheating from the AI, and above all it's lifeless. CK2 though I love to pieces.
 
Bernard95 said:
EU4 is pretty much dead to me too. Way too mindless, way too much RNG, way too much cheating from the AI, and above all it's lifeless. CK2 though I love to pieces.
Click to expand...

I've spent at least a thousand hours with both those titles, but how is EU4 more RNG than CK2? There you are, finally stabilising your little corner kingdom and almost ready to enact primogeniture when suddenly a mild illness drops you dead at 40, leaving an infant king with two infant pretenders splitting your demesne, as well as a handful of upstart vassals. RNG is half the fun of CK2.
 
Avil said:
I actually the one, who played a lot of CK2 before trying EU4, while buying eu4 before ck2. And I think that CK2 is more appealing game for me.
I've seen some playthroughs (it's the same way I got to CK2), but didn't touch the game.
My first experience was close to ragequit, and every time it was something like nest of microstacks carpeting your land behind the fort, and you don't even know, how they got there (and when you see that some of that ****s actually just walked through your fort protected provinces, its a pause for at least a day), or when in somewhat better situation you roll a bad dice three times in a row and get destroyed because of that. And every time when you close up your troops to get a clear advantage, AI magically knows that your big army goes there from miles away. Combining with the fact that wars is the main source of entertainment, experience was devastating. Six month later I played as custom nation, and then as a Ming (full cycle, from 1444 to 1821 >_<). Have no trouble beating people - have no trouble with the game. Got bored, started as Novgorod, and found out that if you break up your ties with republican ways of veche republic (because it's obvious way to get an edge in troop limit to beat muskovy), you'll never become tsardom (ಠ_ಠ), and in order to get it, you should restart your campaign. Nevermind the fact that new ottos, with their new railroaded quests, for some reason very eager to expand into middle Europe and Siberia, if Russia didn't blob here already. Maybe PDX could give them some free claims in Egypt or something?
Micro-management tedium, glaring human-only rules, unnecessary features where they're unneeded, and lack of them when they're, inflexibility / inaccessibility of special things, complete lockout, just because you slip somewhere in the middle - that's what breaks the game for me.
EU4 is like X-COM on harder difficulty (play a mission, or two, and make a pause, to relax from long and stressing missions), but on larger scale (a campaign or two, and take a pause for a month or a half of year).
While in CK2, to the moment when you feel like you finished with your campaign, you already have some wacky bizarre ideas for a new one.
Click to expand...

I did the same. Though i find both games taxing.
But it is more like if i have a good run in either game the day before. I am reluctant to revisit it, because i feel the stars has moved or some shit or that paradox is ready to send me a curveball and make all the nice progress i have made go away(has happened before).
I also had a hard time with EUIV in the beginning because it seemed to detached. But i think the best way to get over it is to try to look at it from another perspective.

I still don't know how to get over my reluctancy to revisit games were i am doing good however.
 
Zelius said:
I've spent at least a thousand hours with both those titles, but how is EU4 more RNG than CK2? There you are, finally stabilising your little corner kingdom and almost ready to enact primogeniture when suddenly a mild illness drops you dead at 40, leaving an infant king with two infant pretenders splitting your demesne, as well as a handful of upstart vassals. RNG is half the fun of CK2.
Click to expand...
I'll agree that part of the fun is clawing your way back up when something goes wrong, but pretty much everything in CK2 has some kind of reasoning to it or you can control it in some way- even something that's RNGish like health you can influence. Meanwhile practically everything in EU4 goes off dice rolls of some sort and a lot of it is very arbitrary to boot. Combat, sieges, ruler's deaths, ruler's traits and stats, rebel and native spawns, choice of advisors, AI rival choices (especially at the beginning of the game), trade goods when you colonize a province, the number of colonists received each month, and I could probably go on.
 
Bernard95 said:
I'll agree that part of the fun is clawing your way back up when something goes wrong, but pretty much everything in CK2 has some kind of reasoning to it or you can control it in some way- even something that's RNGish like health you can influence. Meanwhile practically everything in EU4 goes off dice rolls of some sort and a lot of it is very arbitrary to boot. Combat, sieges, ruler's deaths, ruler's traits and stats, rebel and native spawns, choice of advisors, AI rival choices (especially at the beginning of the game), trade goods when you colonize a province, the number of colonists received each month, and I could probably go on.
Click to expand...
To add to this losing a war in CK2 is often less punishing than EU4 as losing a single war in EU4 can end your game there and then or curtail serious expansion for decades if you can't get the right allies whereas in CK2 it is easier to recover manpower and you usually lose less territory in the peace deal and using intrigue to obtain titles as a small nation is easier then forming PUs.
 
HelpMeWithFleetBug said:
To add to this losing a war in CK2 is often less punishing than EU4 as losing a single war in EU4 can end your game there and then or curtail serious expansion for decades if you can't get the right allies whereas in CK2 it is easier to recover manpower and you usually lose less territory in the peace deal and using intrigue to obtain titles as a small nation is easier then forming PUs.
Click to expand...
Excluding events for PUs and with comparably sized nations.
 
Bernard95 said:
I'll agree that part of the fun is clawing your way back up when something goes wrong, but pretty much everything in CK2 has some kind of reasoning to it or you can control it in some way- even something that's RNGish like health you can influence. Meanwhile practically everything in EU4 goes off dice rolls of some sort and a lot of it is very arbitrary to boot. Combat, sieges, ruler's deaths, ruler's traits and stats, rebel and native spawns, choice of advisors, AI rival choices (especially at the beginning of the game), trade goods when you colonize a province, the number of colonists received each month, and I could probably go on.
Click to expand...

Maybe it depends on how you play the game, but I don't see how, even in your examples, EU4 is visibly more RNG than CK2...

Combat and siege... alright, maybe die rolls in EU4 are more arbitrarily random. Now, I don't like to pay close attention to the grand list of CK2 tactics, but I consider that pretty RNG too. In any case, having a bigger military force will win you the war in either case. If you have an approximately even army vs you opponent, you can have your military leader(s) die by RNG during battle and cost you the war, in both titles...

Death, traits, stats... Rulers have a lesser role than in EU4, and act more like modifiers. You can control 'death' to some extent by making them generals, abdicating etc. In CK2 rulers have a much bigger role, and their traits can affect a lot of things (especially in events... more on that later). All those events that give/take traits are also quite RNG. Send your ruler into battle and he might gain Brave... or Craven. Education has a RNG die roll too, affecting stats.

Rebel and native spawns... Well, there are no native spawns in CK2, that is true. But we have a similar % chance unrest in provinces, except EU4 moved to a progress bar while CK2 rebels can rise without warning.

Choice of advisors, AI rival choices... Well, in CK2 I'm not particularly interested in running a realm-wide breeding program, so for me advisors are pretty random too. With the added bonus that if I don't choose my powerful vassals, they get angry. CK2 'rivals' tend to be random characters and not your equals in any way...

Trade goods, the number of colonists... Pretty inconsequential things? Number of colonists especially, there are so many consecutive die rolls that the chances of deviating much from the mean are so low they might as well make it a flat number. Getting another trade good has pretty much zero impact on the course of a game, unless you are trying to always get the most advantageous die roll.

....

But that's really avoiding the core of the issue. CK2 is a game driven by RNG, especially in its many events. Try an experimental medical treatment and be miraculously cured of cancer... or be Maimed. Assassinate your liege and be one easy war away from ruling the kingdom... or be found out and counter(?)-assassinated within three months. Try to become immortal and die. (Every time so far!) (Try to imprison a plotting vassal with only 40% chance and fail: Oh No! By sheer luck my army just happened to be standing right there, but what will I do with a free revoke?!?)

Yes, sometimes in EU4 you are also dealt a hand and must then play with it. But never have I sat there for a full minute considering choices on an event window weighing the risk... unlike CK2.
 
I much prefer EU over CK.
Mostly because I dont have invest energy into figuring out how to handle all the charachters and can instead focus on how to handle alliances, army buildup, province builpup and when to start the next war.
 
uberjedi said:
I much prefer EU over CK.
Mostly because I dont have invest energy into figuring out how to handle all the charachters and can instead focus on how to handle alliances, army buildup, province builpup and when to start the next war.
Click to expand...
CK2 is actually far easier your AI allies can easily be called into one war after another and will usually attack with all or most of their troops so even as Gotland with the right allies you can conquer most of Ireland and Scotland within a few decades not to mention it is far easier to manipulate inheritance as opposed to personal unions, not to mention against the AI you rarely need to focus on army composition just on numbers alone.
 
I also prefer CK2. EU4 is much more polished, but CK2 has the better core gameplay. In EU4 you have to fight to expand at every moment to stand a chance against your neighbours, who are doing the same. In CK2 you can spend a hundred years doing nothing and then inherit the Byzantine Empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back