The degree of difference between CK2-Hearts of Iron is small. In fact, each game is at the core the same but each has its own gimmick that radically alters how gameplay pans out: CK2 is dynastic, EU is, ultimately, geopoiltical, being halfway between CK2 and Vicky, Vicky is the ultimate state experience, and, although I've never really played it, I assume Hearts of Iron is about strategic war.
But I see no reason why these all cannot be integrated into one and the same game.
I also see no reason why this integrated game could not also integrate the tactical battle map of the Total War series as well. After all, I don't fight most of my battles in the Total War series, only key ones. When I would play Total War, my concentration is always focused on the management side. But the management experience delivered there is substantially inferior to what a Paradox game provides. Nevertheless, especially in EU, the ability not to be able to fight your own battles is crippling. I definitely find myself longing for this feature, in such a way that I do no understand why must there be two games, each deficient in one aspect, when there could be one game, which boasts the possession of both.
But I digress.
I see no reason why CK2 should be entirely focused on the dynastic and religious, when it could just as well incorporate the state-running of Vicky 2. Indeed, that was part of a medieval society as well, if not more so. Incorporating the state-running experience of Vicky into CK2 would not diminish the medieval focus of the game but only enhance. Incorporating a greater emphasis on economic matters would not detract the focus of the game, but once again enhance it.
The incorporation of all of these features into one single game that spans the breadth of time four separate games occupy would make one truly unsurpassed game. Not only do I have to worry about my dynasty but also the resources of my lands, the class orders, taxation rates, inflation, etc.
I have always advocated for this but it is always met with hostility. "Why not play Total War then?" Because these games in most aspects are superior.
But I see no reason why these all cannot be integrated into one and the same game.
I also see no reason why this integrated game could not also integrate the tactical battle map of the Total War series as well. After all, I don't fight most of my battles in the Total War series, only key ones. When I would play Total War, my concentration is always focused on the management side. But the management experience delivered there is substantially inferior to what a Paradox game provides. Nevertheless, especially in EU, the ability not to be able to fight your own battles is crippling. I definitely find myself longing for this feature, in such a way that I do no understand why must there be two games, each deficient in one aspect, when there could be one game, which boasts the possession of both.
But I digress.
I see no reason why CK2 should be entirely focused on the dynastic and religious, when it could just as well incorporate the state-running of Vicky 2. Indeed, that was part of a medieval society as well, if not more so. Incorporating the state-running experience of Vicky into CK2 would not diminish the medieval focus of the game but only enhance. Incorporating a greater emphasis on economic matters would not detract the focus of the game, but once again enhance it.
The incorporation of all of these features into one single game that spans the breadth of time four separate games occupy would make one truly unsurpassed game. Not only do I have to worry about my dynasty but also the resources of my lands, the class orders, taxation rates, inflation, etc.
I have always advocated for this but it is always met with hostility. "Why not play Total War then?" Because these games in most aspects are superior.
