CK2 vs EU4 DLC gap?

[Rostan]

Heya,

I have found myself no longer buying the ones from EU4 but still buying CK2 expansions. Given the insane amount of features that Holy Fury seems to bring, and the comparatively underwhelming DLC that EU4 has been expanded with lately, am I right to say that there seems to now be a gap between the quality and quantity of new featres in CK2 DLC over comparatively priced EU4 DLC? Is anyone feeling this gap and if so, when did it emerge?

 

[Lord Hoosier]

I would say Cradle of Civilization was much better than Jade Dragon, and we haven't had an expansion for CKII since then so I don't agree that there is a "DLC gap." I will say that EUIV has had consistently good dlc, with a few exceptions (looking at you Third Rome) and that CKII has more truly great dlcs at the cost of more than a couple duds (Conclave, Sons of Abraham, and Monks & Mystics come to mind.) . I would say the addition of games like HOI IV that seem to have bad luck with their DLCs and Stellaris which has had really consistently great expansions have muddied the syncing between their older brothers' dlc. Dharma was weak and Rule Britannia was an immersion pack so we cant really pass serious judgement on EUIV just yet. One bad dlc next to an extraordinary one is a hopefully isolated incident

 

[sortulv]

I don't think that EU4's DLC are bad - just that they don't seem to add much to the game anymore. With CK 2, HOI4 and Stellaris I always feel that a new DLC adds something to the games I play, while for EU4 it doesn't really feel that way. It feels like it adds a bit of variation, but I don't really play that many games of EU4 to justify that (playing EU4 to the very end takes a while...)

 

[Lord Hoosier]

I got into euiv at Rights of Man, so maybe I don't have the best perspective. But I thought Cradle of Civilization was good, but its seems Mandate of Heaven, Dharma, and especially Third Rome were lackluster. I will say that I'm not a big fan of Rule Britannia's new mission system as seems like it made minor nations feel more generic. No I don't want to build a Grand Fleet as Trier... But the game as a whole is still a masterpiece, so I appreciate that they keep trying to keep it interesting. I appreciated the map changes all the above dlc - updates brought however!

 

[ᛒᛖᚱᛋᛖᚱᚲ]

Heya,

I have found myself no longer buying the ones from EU4 but still buying CK2 expansions. Given the insane amount of features that Holy Fury seems to bring, and the comparatively underwhelming DLC that EU4 has been expanded with lately, am I right to say that there seems to now be a gap between the quality and quantity of new featres in CK2 DLC over comparatively priced EU4 DLC? Is anyone feeling this gap and if so, when did it emerge?

EU4's DLC's are a comparative joke.

 

[Zephyrum]

Reasonable line of thought. Jade Dragon seems lackluster, but if you are playing in it's region, it does affect a lot. Comparatively, Dharma hardly alters gameplay in India other than extending the early game due to more provinces and making more overpowered national ideas.

Holy Fury seems like it's out to fix every loose end CK2 has while also providing tons of features for anywhere on the map, and even new maps if that isn't enough. Comparatively, I don't think EU4 has had a DLC with such a scope to revolutionize it since Art of War.

EU4 remains, right now, my favorite of the titles, yet it does saddens me to see the newer games like HoI4 and Stellaris rise quickly, and even their older cousing CK2 having, at least, one epic last hurrah, while EU4 has not seen any DLC bringing great joy since Rights of Man. More recent Mandate of Heaven is fun and all, but awfully broken and buggy, while Cradle of Civilization had one set of interesting features that were on the brink of bringing a new, fun metagame... until it was nerfed almost immediately in a hotfix patch back into oblivion.

I'd argue most of the good stuff EU4 gets nowadays are clearly inspired from the other games - CK2 inspired the RoM ruler traits, and HoI4 inspired the new mission trees. Pretty much every other feature hardly manages to tackle gameplay in a fun way.

 

[ᛒᛖᚱᛋᛖᚱᚲ]

Reasonable line of thought. Jade Dragon seems lackluster, but if you are playing in it's region, it does affect a lot. Comparatively, Dharma hardly alters gameplay in India other than extending the early game due to more provinces and making more overpowered national ideas.

Holy Fury seems like it's out to fix every loose end CK2 has while also providing tons of features for anywhere on the map, and even new maps if that isn't enough. Comparatively, I don't think EU4 has had a DLC with such a scope to revolutionize it since Art of War.

EU4 remains, right now, my favorite of the titles, yet it does saddens me to see the newer games like HoI4 and Stellaris rise quickly, and even their older cousing CK2 having, at least, one epic last hurrah, while EU4 has not seen any DLC bringing great joy since Rights of Man. More recent Mandate of Heaven is fun and all, but awfully broken and buggy, while Cradle of Civilization had one set of interesting features that were on the brink of bringing a new, fun metagame... until it was nerfed almost immediately in a hotfix patch back into oblivion.

I'd argue most of the good stuff EU4 gets nowadays are clearly inspired from the other games - CK2 inspired the RoM ruler traits, and HoI4 inspired the new mission trees. Pretty much every other feature hardly manages to tackle gameplay in a fun way.

EU4 is a bloated mess. It really feels like a step back from EU3: Divine Wind.

 

[Parapluman]

Personally I favor Stellaris over EUIV or CKII, but that's mostly due to the major overhauls that accompany each update.

 

[shiro the bushi]

Personally I favor Stellaris over EUIV or CKII, but that's mostly due to the major overhauls that accompany each update.

Im kinda with you there, Like every big update in stellaris really makes it a new game, but the issue is its a new IP and they havent ironed out all the quirks and you can feel it. CK2 both us and the devs know where its weak and thus know where to improve

 

[Palando]

I have to say that I was an EU IV player through and through, and looked down at CK II because of its problems (technology, trade goods, peace brokering and a few other things). The recent EU IV DLCs have killed my motivation to play it anymore, as the devs seem so keen to preserve the game's state after MoH, but still want to sell full priced DLCs ... That or they are just uninspired (ironically, a new dev team is more conservative than an old one).

I feel like a complete swap of the EU IV team (the art team can stay) or the development of a successor (EU V) are the only chances to bring EU back to its former glory. I hoped that the new EU IV team would need one expansion to learn (like Johan failed with Mare Nostrum, but brought RoM), but apparently the team think everything is fine and will just continue to sell mission trees and three buttons. I doubt anything will change though, as the sale are still excellent and even seem to grow. The EU IV player base seems to be extremely die hard and will defend extremely useless buttons like the new naval barrage as a big feature (only because they can now breach one or two forts in the early game).

Immersion packs are the most cancerous form of DLC, as they tend to add negligible global features (coal, innovativeness, flagships, ...) and only a special button as well as mission trees for the focus nation. Although they contain the word immersion; they add next to no new game play for their particular focus nation. Just ask yourself the question how a mediocre faith (Anglicanism) changes your England game. The answer shockingly is not at all. Golden Century is bound to do the same for Iberia. Dharma was also only a bigger ImPak and added nothing to Indian gameplay (Jade Dragon at least does that).
Third Rome was how an immersion pack should look like: region/country based mechanics, so that you can just skip the DLC if you don't play in that region. Granted, the Russian three buttons should have been something more engaging, but the Iberian state buttons aren't any better at all (and possibly even worse).

That's why I moved on to CK II and now find myself enjoying it after picking up most of the DLCs. Most of the DLCs bring far more to the board than EU IV DLCs; although they are priced far cheaper than EU IV's 20€ DLCs. It's funny that a 10€ DLC (Reaper's Due) was far more impactful than TR, CoC, RB, Dharma and GC are together; although their total cost is 70€.

 

[sreckom92]

Holy Fury is like a major expansion (mechanics-galore) and an immersion pack combined. It adds a ton of stuff, for a pretty reasonable cost when you take a closer look at it. Though it takes more than a year to make it, as it seems.
Personally, this is what I want from an expansion for a Paradox game, although I don't like the waiting time.
Also, Holy Fury is perhaps like this because it's the last expansion for CK2, and Paradox wants to go out with a bang. Hopefully that's not the case.

Oh, and I absolutely love region-specific expansions. Focus on a single entity, or a group of similar ones. That's nice, but it would need to tied to that focus, and bring forth just a bit of gameplay mechanics, not just flavour. If I don't want to play as that particular entity, I don't buy the expansion, and I don't miss out on any content. That's the proper model for an immersion pack, in my opinion.

 

[fr-rein]

Right now I would say that my issue with EU4 is how many different specific mechanics and specifics are not tied between themselves well, especially because a number of them is in DLCs and the game should be playable without them.
CK2 does that way better - even if you turn off Way of Life, you can still play the game well. Same for turning off Islam, China and other things - your game remains solid and playable. But of course there were rather lackluster DLCs, like the Sunset Invasion - which didn't get the interaction with America like we get with China, which is kinda disappointing.

In EU4 there are things that should have been kinda more integrated. For example, estates were a stagnant mechanics for a while because they belonged solely to the Cossacks DLC - even though this is a great mechanics to introduce some special social groups, minorities and outlaws (like, for example, actually adding pirates as estate, somewhat like Cossacks are).
EU4 would probably win from revisiting some already existing things and integrating them better into game, while expanding on some mechanics which are literally a button (looking at you, stability).
It's hard to tell where EU4 is going right now, but we will see in the future. Admittedly, adding new missions and integrating them into game is a rather hard task, as well as redrawing the map and fixing old issues. For now, the biggest letdown was the way the Holy Orders and Jesuits were integrated into the game, it's just sad and can barely be justified to be a good thing. It also lowers chances of getting a decent Counterreformation and Jesuits for everyone.

Immersion packs are the most cancerous form of DLC

Indeed.
Please give some cancer to Ruthenia though, it really is poorly represented in game and The Cossacks was supposed to be a DLC about the region.

 

[shiro the bushi]

Im fine with immersion packs if theyre priced properly I feel the 10-13 cdn isnt worth it, like with ck2 or stellaris, regional expansions affect the game as a whole. It just really doesnt feel the same with eu4

 

[ᛒᛖᚱᛋᛖᚱᚲ]

Lol This latest expansion thingy for EUIV is shaping up to be every bit as big of a cluster as the last few. They just can't get it together.

 

[Pannonian84]

That's just my personal experience, but for me it feels like EU4 is way too much concerned with MP. They are kind of harsh with nerfing stuff, and yes, sometimes that takes the fun away. I feel like CK2 (and to an extent Stellaris) offer me a much wider choice of playstyle, while for EU4 i feel boxed into the same game feel every time i play. While 2 CK2 playthroughs can differ greatly, it feels to me that after the first 100 years, EACH Eu4 game is the same.

Its just too streamlined into 1 "right way to play" in my opinion.

 

[Milten]

Lol This latest expansion thingy for EUIV is shaping up to be every bit as big of a cluster as the last few. They just can't get it together.

Don't want to be a jerk towards people doing their best, but their best isn't selling it for me unfortunately. And with latest announce I realized it's been like this for a while.

 

[Denkt]

Every time I have tried CKII I did not find it enjoyable so I find EUIV to be the better game. I don't think the dlc make much difference because the core gameplay in both games more or less stay the same, even with major Changes to the mechanics and such. Imperator: Rome look to me like a better CKII and while keeping many of the good things about EUIV.

 

[Yevardian]

EU4 and CK2 = Apples and Oranges.
It's actually quite striking how 2 games by the same company, with the same engine, same historical theme, can be so different.

 

[withche.07]

I actually don't think there is a problem with eu4 dlcs, as adding depth to current gameplay is great.
But as far as I can see community seeks new gameplay mechanics.
New additions like trees, government reforms, orders etc all feel like "click and get a modifier or points".
I personally don't think its bad, but community wants these type of alternative rewarding mechanics together with whole new structures, for example why don't we change how sieges work? Can we change how diplomacy works? Like assasinations etc. Can we introduce loyalty mechanics?

People demand details in core mechanics similar to my examples.

 

[Yevardian]

I think it's more that EU4 DLC make a change that's claimed to be game-changer, comes out half-baked and with little impact, and then is promptly ignored forever afterwards. See Army Professionalism.