Crusader kings -v- Victoria

[billy bob]

Well I just recently got Victoria and was waaayyy too overwhelmed. It can be fun if you have enough time to read 20 pages of FAQs before you even BEGIN to learn how to play it. But it is certainly more mature than crusaders at this point.

Crusaders is better in the sense that you could just sit back and watch the cash flow in, if you are playing a count or even a duke you can roleplay your character, and you actually start to care about your dinasty and worrying about that clubfooted crazed moron who is about to take things over. When paradox cuts some of the tedious stuff out and perfects the diplomacy aspect I think it would end up being the best of the series, IMHO. It is WAY less complex and technical than victoria and a million times more open-ended than HOI.

I understood Vicky in my first game without reading anything.

 

[Galeno]

Playing CK in the last three or four weeks. It's really fun. But... Victoria is the best Paradox game so far in oh so many aspects. Maybe the timeframe, the politics, the best war simulation (man, how the trenches become a hard thing to beat over time...), the events. Vicky is THE game.

CK tries to give you the medieval feeling. Vicky punchs you inside the XIX century, trying to be as historical as possible. So, CK and Vic are very diferent and I understand people who like one and don't like the other. Me, I like them both.

 

[unmerged(27589)]

At last, not even a bias on CK in the CK forum. Not like the Vicky Forum, everyone supports victoria.
I as a Vicky fan wants to say that vicky isn't that hard to play. No need to go through any FAQs. Vicky is my first PARADOX game and i learn it the hardware. Through trail and error. If you got questions, read the FORUM!!

 

[unmerged(1057)]

CK is much more fun, not because it is technically a better game (because it isn´t), but for the feel...Don´t know exactly why, for me personally I think it´s because I like the medieval era...Victoria is...err...too much footwork for me...I like to sit on my horseback and contemplate, not in my desk with work up to my elbows..

 

[unmerged(28015)]

Right now, CK is my favourite...perfect game to chill out when i come back to work. I am too tired to play Vicky...maybe that's it:

CK: during the week
Vicky: during the weekend

:rofl:

 

[Red Rainbow]

Playing CK in the last three or four weeks. It's really fun. But... Victoria is the best Paradox game so far in oh so many aspects. Maybe the timeframe, the politics, the best war simulation (man, how the trenches become a hard thing to beat over time...), the events. Vicky is THE game.

CK tries to give you the medieval feeling. Vicky punchs you inside the XIX century, trying to be as historical as possible. So, CK and Vic are very diferent and I understand people who like one and don't like the other. Me, I like them both.

As Galeno said, Vicky is THE game for me, too, but we have to admit that Vic is a completely different game compared with other Paradox' s games, so I understand the doubts of "no-micromanagement lovers". BTW CK is a very good game, even if sometimes it seems to me a step behind for bugs and instability...

 

[Spruce]

CK is slightly better - simply because the upcoming patch will increase the events even further and will improve AI and game balances.

still too much money in CK - perhaps due to spoiler events (the estates general event makes too much gold and other events nearly are doing nothing - I've seen +1/-1 piety events - that's totally bad!

- so making it little less boring + improve the AI + tweak down kingdoms caving in, will make it a winner. But that's the same issue with Victoria,

I want to fix CK brilliance by stating what happened in my last game =

"I want to kill that oldest son "Ruprecht" of mine - my second oldest son "Albert" will one day inherit the Duke crown of Meissen - but the Duke of Meissen is still very young. And myself - I'm too old, so chances are that "Ruprecht" will be count of Breisgau and "Albert" will be sleeping off most of his days until he has become duke of Meissen.
"Oh my god, "Albert" has become duke of Meissen and he died only yesterday - at the age of 9! This means that I'm duke of Meissen, my time hasn't come - I've got to run a duchy now"
"It seems only Ruprecht could continue my dynasty - he's sick and his marriage with the daughter of the Bavarian duke hasn't brought any children. And his talents are not suited, I feel the need to bread another child. My time hasn't come - definately not!"

that's CK !!!

So please Johan and crew make that extra effort to make a brilliant game that will be remembered for many decades!

- improve AI,
- less kingdom caving in,
- too much money, so tweak a bit,
- there have been threads about genetic optimisation over the centuries. IIRC that's due to the fact that the coming generations will be more fertile and healthy. That's not good for game fun!
- more events!

yeah!

 

[Chaingun]

So please Johan and crew make that extra effort to make a brilliant game that will be remembered for many decades!

- improve AI,
- less kingdom caving in,
- too much money, so tweak a bit,
- there have been threads about genetic optimisation over the centuries. IIRC that's due to the fact that the coming generations will be more fertile and healthy. That's not good for game fun!
- more events!

yeah!

Don't forget about the user interface (mainly the character lists) than currently are unsortable and almost impossible to handle once you reach 200+ characters in your court. Also, the education/marriages should be limited to the immediate vicinity of the ruler since 200+ people in one's dynasty tend to generate a message every few days.

Else, I agree completely about especially the AI improvements. Once that happens CK will be the ultimate SP game (I'm currently evaluating it in MP).

 

[november]

I like CK. I played 200-300 years into several games but abandoned them. CK is the only Paradox game that annoys me with its bugs and unbalanced or broken aspects.The reason it annoys me is the length of time it takes to complete a GC.

Victoria is *my* game. I’ve completed about 15 GCs now and new, unexpected things happen all the time. That keeps it fresh.

For all of CK’s in-line events, I find Victoria to be more varied and better stocked with unexpected and game-changing events. Plus I find it hard to forgive Paradox for not including a ledger in CK—bad form.

 

[Matija]

uff not a contest I think CK is far better game then Victoria

 

[daedalus]

I have to disagree with the general opinion that Victoria is a more dificult game to learn and master. I have played the game, and never remember being at lost. I have to say Victoria is a tedious game to master. It's like one of those product with just too many options that get on the way of the main operation, and always get replaced by the more simple effective alternatives.

Things I hate about Vicky:

- The war system: when you consistently have single armies of 1,5 mill, and the UK being able to able an standing army of 15 millions (1500 divisions), all figthing as regular, war becomes less about strategy and more off a numbers game.
- The economy system: I am not expert on the victorian age, but I am pretty sure the luxury clothes and furniture industries were not the driving force of the economies. But in Vicky is all what you do: close all your factories and build insane number of luxury furniture, and you will be all set! You make more money by letting your huge consumer goods production rotten in your warehouse and impossing high tariffs! You make more money for having a province with 6 craftmen, 4 clerks and 1,000 capitalist!
- The POP system: unless you are part of an utopian socialist/marxist country, how can you justify that who one day was a poor and unemployet laborer becomes a rich owner just because the state says so! Or here now you are a laborer, now you are a craftmen, now you are a clerk, now you are a soldier, now you are a priest, now you are a capitalist! (and the circle can more or less repeat)
- The production system: 5 1k POPs will produce more than 1 100k POP! (I might have the numbers wrong here, but the system is broken)
- China can go from uncivilize nation to # 1 power in one day!

And there are tons of more issues that do not make much sense, and harldly represent my idea of the Victorian age.

In the other hand CK has refreshingly new concepts, so different to the road Paradox has gone with HoI and Victoria, and at the same time I get the same feeling I got when I started playing EUII.

 

[unmerged(29050)]

get both, if you have to get one first go with the historical period that interests you more.

dont let tales of victorias comlexity turn you off. it just makes victory all the more rewarding and when your beginning just remember you dont need to do everything. focus on a cash crop or a steel industry until you get the hang of things. and dont be afraid to tax. the tax rates needed to sustain a goverment in vic are nothing like reality.

 

[Mustard]

I saw this question on the Vicky forum the other day and wondered how long it would take to migrate over here.

You can't go wrong with either game, but if I was forced to choose just one it would be Vicky.

 

[Cagliostro]

I pretty much stopped playing Victoria when I got CK. I still play EU, though.

I found it frustrating in Victoria trying to find a country that was both playable and challenging. There were enough things with Victoria that irritated me that I found myself not enjoying it as much as I felt I should, both fixable (mad colonial Russia, strange exploits, etc.) and unfixable (ridiculous amounts of micromanagement for playing a country the size of the US).

I don't really like the "handcuffed to history" approach of either the EU or Victoria models. The fact that some countries are basically totally unplayable in Victoria bothered me, and what I view as an unreasonable modeling of German and Italian unification still more. The political party model I also view as extremely problematic, and makes some countries essentially unable to play as democracies.

There are a lot of problems with CK, still, but I have more hopes for it being fixed better than Vicky. I can't imagine that any fixes for Vicky will make the micromanagement of a large empire significantly less torturous, whereas in CK the interface is less horrific (excepting the lack of a ledger and an irritating bride-finding process, both of which are correctable in SP with Horragoth's External Ledger).

I find the family modeling of CK tremendously appealing, and with the latest patches the events are actually entertaining - I find myself nervously waiting for my king to reach the age of majority lest he get some nasty regency events, or deciding how much I care about what happens to a given son. In Victoria the events are a great deal less interactive.

None of the Paradox games are perfect, and all of them have significant problems. I do still play them obsessively and constantly. But CK definitely trumps Victoria for me, both in having less irritating problems, and more entertaining virtues.

 

[unmerged(30793)]

There are a lot of problems with CK, still, but I have more hopes for it being fixed better than Vicky. I can't imagine that any fixes for Vicky will make the micromanagement of a large empire significantly less torturous,

What exactly is all this micromanagement you talk about. Given the time the grand campaign lasts in Vicky what you have to do is more or less suitable to keep you occupied in empire building between wars. In CK on the other hand you really have to read a book or something waiting for something to happen.

 

[ArmchairGeneral]

Victoria is the best game. CK, lacks in realism, and is often too easy. Any game that allows you to conquer the world has a flaw, although it can be fun to do it. Several things could be better in CK, including the combat system, the crusader model, church relations, and the ease with which one can conquer his neighbor. CK's dynastic system is excellent, and I must admit it is quite an innovation. But the game still bores me.

 

[unmerged(33128)]

Victoria is the best game. CK, lacks in realism, and is often too easy. Any game that allows you to conquer the world has a flaw, although it can be fun to do it. Several things could be better in CK, including the combat system, the crusader model, church relations, and the ease with which one can conquer his neighbor. CK's dynastic system is excellent, and I must admit it is quite an innovation. But the game still bores me.

that is kinda how i feel, I like victoria for its complexity, and Crusader kings for it simplicity. I play crusader kings to really role-play, but doing that alone is only so much fun, then i have to switch to something else...

 

[unmerged(20462)]

One off-topic point... I have never played Victoria, but it seems that the micromanagement of this game is more complex, and therefore Victoria players consider CK too simple... It is interesting then to read all the reviews of CK in games magazines stating that one of the cons of CK is "it’s so detailed"... I don't really know what these reviewers then thought about Victoria...

 

[Cagliostro]

What exactly is all this micromanagement you talk about. Given the time the grand campaign lasts in Vicky what you have to do is more or less suitable to keep you occupied in empire building between wars. In CK on the other hand you really have to read a book or something waiting for something to happen.

I find that I spend a ridiculous amount of time figuring out which provinces I have built up and how, checking where I need clerks, etc. One of the earlier games I played in Vicky was as Texas, and I conquered western America and most of Mexico. Managing that many provinces turned out to be intensely boring, as were the inevitable wars with the US. There's just far too much work you have to do all the time, there's no option to automatically upgrade stuff or do it for large areas, and any large scale economics or warfare requires a huge amount of multitasking.

On a small scale it's very entertaining, and I enjoy playing countries like, for example, Haiti. But once I start conquering myself an empire the same problem resurfaces. It just requires too much input for my taste, and there's no way to delineate tasks to the AI to figure out.

I never really experience the "read a book" phenomenon - frankly, I find that the pauses are my opportunity to look around and see what's going on. And really there's a lot to do in CK - it's just a matter of deciding what you want to do. It's just that it doesn't require you to manage every single task.

I think PE's analogy of Vicky as a "clerk's" game is kind of apt; the unavoidable micromanagement gets kind of tedious for me.

 

[Cagliostro]

Any game that allows you to conquer the world has a flaw, although it can be fun to do it.

You can do that in EU or Vicky, too... You just have to be nuts to do it in Vicky because you'll want to kill yourself managing every province on earth.