Crusader Kings 2 or Victoria 2 ?

[Teten1]

Hmm... I don't know about you not knowing. General popularity (which certainly favors CK2) doesn't mean it's the best choice for the OP. Lacking knowledge of what the OP wants may make it the best bet, but even bad odds aren't no odds.

Then lets view it in the context of what the OP has actually played. The OP has been playing a ton of EU4. CK2 is VERY different and far more focused than EU4. I would argue (based on my very limited time with Vicky 2), that V2 is very much in the vein of EU, just a bit more hardcore. Therefore if he is looking for a similar game with a greater challenge, then go with V2. If he is looking for a more focused Dynasty/Feudal Simulator, go CK2.

 

[mrguymiah]

Hmm... I don't know about you not knowing. General popularity (which certainly favors CK2) doesn't mean it's the best choice for the OP. Lacking knowledge of what the OP wants may make it the best bet, but even bad odds aren't no odds.

Like I said: There's a reason CKII was Paradox's big hit financially. It's a wonderful game, but it's also easier which is why I think most people prefer it. You can be a world conqueror, if you want, unlike in Victoria II. As for what OP wants, I agree that he really didn't give enough information. "Which is a better game?" is a horrible question. XD

Then lets view it in the context of what the OP has actually played. The OP has been playing a ton of EU4. CK2 is VERY different and far more focused than EU4. I would argue (based on my very limited time with Vicky 2), that V2 is very much in the vein of EU, just a bit more hardcore. Therefore if he is looking for a similar game with a greater challenge, then go with V2. If he is looking for a more focused Dynasty/Feudal Simulator, go CK2.

Insightful and reasonable. I agree that if he's looking for something like EUIV, then he should go with Victoria II.

 

[Tom013]

Like I said: There's a reason CKII was Paradox's big hit financially. It's a wonderful game, but it's also easier which is why I think most people prefer it. You can be a world conqueror, if you want, unlike in Victoria II. As for what OP wants, I agree that he really didn't give enough information. "Which is a better game?" is a horrible question. XD


Insightful and reasonable. I agree that if he's looking for something like EUIV, then he should go with Victoria II.

I gave a detailed response earlier, but I disagree that V2 is more of a "game like EU4" than CK2. Both CK2 and V2 have a more dynamic inward-looking game than EU4 but in different ways and neither have the brute-force expansionist style of EU4. And despite the great recent improvements to internal dynamics with EU4, it is still very much expansion-centric. CK2 allows for that sort of gameplay much more readily than V2, but you play a character. V2 makes you a centralized nation like EU4, but changes the dynamics of expansionism a great deal -- particularly amongst the "Civilized Nations" general expansion is really not at its core. They both have similarities to EU4, but I don't know that I'd say "Oh, you want a game like EU4 -- [X] is the one." Still, if he wants something more accessible, it's CK2. If he likes depth and doesn't mind some of the quirkiness of an older game in the "old" Paradox model, V2 is fantastic.

 

[aenariel]

I like both, but I tend to favor VickyII over CKII. Why? Well, it's more in-depth. It poses more challenges to me than CKII. But that's my opinion. Unfortunately, Vicky is starting to show age.

 

[GeneralJhon]

CK II, since we are at a "new gen" of the paradox games (chronology). We got CK II, next its EU IV, next would be VIC III and finally HOI IV

 

[cpre5]

CK 2 and AGOT mod

 

[Tom013]

CK 2 and AGOT mod

CK2 definitely has an advantage in its modding community. A lot of the V2 mods are no longer under active development and only a few were ever updated to be compatible with the newest expansion. There are still a few worth trying out and a few are actively being improved, but the V2 engine and the scope of the bigger mods makes them run much slower (even by comparison to CK2 mods).

CK II, since we are at a "new gen" of the paradox games (chronology). We got CK II, next its EU IV, next would be VIC III and finally HOI IV

That's clearly not true since HOI4 is under development and with a public release timeframe (early 2015), and the last official statement on V3 was basically a "we aren't thinking about it yet."

 

[SknerusMck]

I don't have both games but I tested CK II then on sale bought Vic II with 2 biggest expansions and i think it is great! So much economy :3 and so much things i can't understand so far . In CK II I didn't like all that characters and relations with them, there wasn't any economy if i remember good :<. The idea of conquering the world [not exactly conquering, but.. taking it into your sphere, sth like this xd] by getting your grandchilds into diffrent thrones is not entertaining me. Maybe i will play it, but after i will get bored of Vic II and EU IV [so looong time ].

For me CK II < Victoria II.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

I've sunk faaaaaaar too many hours into both and it largely depends on how much of a learning curve you want. Vicky is hard as hell. I got into it about a year ago and there are still parts (early industrialization mostly) that I just pray work without getting how they are supposed to work.

I was up and running in CKII inside a few days. Definitely don't start in Southern Italy, you're gonna have a bad time. Everything just pops and makes sense.

Still, I think I like Vicky more; its more intense since you only have 100 years to become a great power, there is no time to waste. Whilst in CKII you can take your time and failures, unless at the very end of the game, aren't too much to deal with. Plus I enjoy the setting and era of the former more.

 

[Kiithis]

CK2 gives you more involvement regardless of country choice. The focus on family makes for a more engaging experience.

V2 is most fulfilling when you pick certain nations with either lots to do, or that start out in challenging situations. There is something enticing about turning post Napoleonic Kingdoms into Global economic and or military super powers.

Get both, but get CK2 first, it's newer and plays more fluidly making it easier to get into.

 

[Teije]

Tough call. Vic2 has more interesting mechanics for playing, but I enjoy playing CK2 more. But with AoW, EUIV has finally matured into a very good game, so I'm only playing it right now and ignoring the other two.

Of course, really depends what the OP likes about EUIV or finds lacking in it. Without that info, we're just guessing.

 

[Epicduke]

Depends on what you like OP. I find Vicky more fun as I like the industrial and WWI era. CK2 for me is cool, but I enjoy playing as a country more than playing as a person.

 

[solidprice]

Ck2 converted all HRE is fun if everyone is fairly balanced.
But I'm biased towards ck2 because I haven't played Vicky 2.
Would like to try Vicky 2 to see what I could do.

 

[RELee]

Victoria 2, man. CK is okay. Taking a agricultural nation and bringing it up through the industrial age and the world of tanks and planes has got to count for something.

 

[flammable888]

thanks for the replies everyone.both these games sounds good.as they are cheap i might get them both.

 

[Old Flashy]

Victoria 2 easily.

 

[RELee]

thanks for the replies everyone.both these games sounds good.as they are cheap i might get them both.

Troublemaker!

:rofl:

 

[Tom013]

Troublemaker!

:rofl:

He clearly made the right decision. =)

 

[Niptium]

Victoria 2

 

[Incompetent]

i dont know if the eu4 forum is the best place to ask but im sure lots of people here have played ck2 or victoria 2.i have enjoyed playing eu4 and i was wondering with the steam sale on what is the best game to play.
i was reading the replies and some people were saying the converter wasnt working.thats what would of made the difference for me.thank you.

Both good (and both more complex than EU4), but very different. The one thing they have in common (but not with EU4) is that *people* are represented in them.

CK2 has the uppermost echelon of society (something like 10,000 people at any one time) represented as individuals (one of which will be the player character), but peasants and gentry are completely abstracted away. So it's a good game if you like personnel and family management, keeping track of who is related to whom and persuading individuals to do you what you want them to do. In fact apart from wars (which will be frequent and can result in very rapid changes in the balance of power), most of your time will be spent juggling your various vassals and courtiers and managing your dynasty members (some of whom may behave badly). Your dynasty comes first, country second.

Victoria 2 has the whole mass of the population from slaves to aristocrats (actually, only working-age males, but let's not quibble) represented in a statistical way, with fairly detailed demographic processes of education, political attitudes and so on, but your leading statesmen and industrialists are faceless (although capitalists do have a rudimentary AI). So it's more of a bureaucratic game, managing people on a vast scale, and the focus is on providing for their economic and political needs rather than their personal whims. You can be a grasping imperialist like in EU4/CK2, and indeed it's quite easy to do so by conquering 'uncivilised' countries (at the start of the game, this pretty much means 'countries not yet ruled by white people'), but it's not necessary to blob in order to prosper.