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.
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...

CK2 is the game where you can legitimately, passively conquer the world you see. My Gotland game for the achievement was only meant to encourage a reformed Germanic Europe from a Baltic centered Empire of Scandinavia. Despite only rarely declaring wars, largely to clean nearby borders, for centuries my vassals managed to conquer everything in the map except Mali, India, Tibet, and some surrounding central Asian lands. If I had attempted to expand myself, I would have easily conquered the map.

EU4 requires that you actually declare wars to expand to anywhere near that degree. Your subjects will never conquer most of the damn world of their own accord. CK2 is a blobbing simulator much more than EU4 solely because I don't need to act to blob.

Shinkuro Yukinari said:
In CK2 there is always the lingering risk of rebellious nobles that can actually dismantle you. In EU4 you just get Humanist ideas and are pretty fine for the most part. Not to mention the numerous freebies, like trading professionalism for manpower
Click to expand...

I'm a modest CK2 player. Rebels are rarely a threat. Vassals are easily placated or hamstrung. With Jade Dragon and all other DLC, I had a world spanning empire made by my vassals and had no rebellion or rebel threats. I was easily able to cut off most threats with marriages or giving council positions. It is easy to get enough troops/levees to kill rebellion threat.
 
Personally, I love both EU and CK series and play both, but these days I prefer to play CK2 over EU4. Mostly because how that game has become mired and overdependent on the stupid mana system...and because I cannot play tall without getting bored to death really fast.
 
IMO - EU4 go wrong way. Too much "nationalist" mechanics (only for Mughals, Russia etc.), too less "universalis" mechanics. No concepts to alt-historian scenarios (eg. republicanian scenario for Russia formed by Novgorod). Core, archaic now, mechanics (eg. stabilization, reduction of WE, missionaries) still aren't changed. Therefore I don't buy new DLC's for EU4.
 
HelpMeWithFleetBug said:
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).
Click to expand...
just raze everything.
 
I'm a modest CK2 player. Rebels are rarely a threat. Vassals are easily placated or hamstrung. With Jade Dragon and all other DLC, I had a world spanning empire made by my vassals and had no rebellion or rebel threats. I was easily able to cut off most threats with marriages or giving council positions. It is easy to get enough troops/levees to kill rebellion threat.[/QUOTE]
That is why i play with mods.
 
"uninteresting", "without depth", and "boring" are literally the things i would name prior to seeing this thread as "three things that you could, for all its faults, never ever say about eu4".
you must have a shitton of hours, OP, and i mean a shitton. in all the time i have spent playing eu4, which would be x to 10x of time spent on watching and reading eu4-related material, i have constantly felt and still am feeling that i'm being humbled by this game. not the difficulty, but the complexity, the amount and depth of mechanics.

i'm not offended or anything, i'm genuinely shocked. without any sarcasm, either you just lost interest in the game due to different reasons, or you truly are remarkable, because i doubt i will find this game boring in a decade from now.
 
EU4 mainly suffers from a lack of depth in anything other than military expansion. Which is why the changes to regulate the rate of expansion was met with so much backlash: 14 DLCs later and there still hasn't been anything like POP mechanics or internal factions to give peacetime any kind of depth.
 
I don't think there comparable nor exclusive to one another.I do hear you though. Although I started out with ck2 and moved to the other titles. Unfortunately I can't get back into ck2 because my characters keep dying of cancer.if anything needs to die of cancer its that poor excuse of a dlc. Euiv is bloated with nonsensical rules and buttons so I'm just waiting for that Rome game to come out to see if that can cure my strategy game hunger.
 
schondetta said:
I don't think there comparable nor exclusive to one another.I do hear you though. Although I started out with ck2 and moved to the other titles. Unfortunately I can't get back into ck2 because my characters keep dying of cancer.if anything needs to die of cancer its that poor excuse of a dlc. Euiv is bloated with nonsensical rules and buttons so I'm just waiting for that Rome game to come out to see if that can cure my strategy game hunger.
Click to expand...
What about Victoria 2? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back