Eu3 master interested in CK2

[Synario]

For a while now I've been interested in buying CK2 and done some research but have been reading that apparently this is like the entry-level game and the easiest in the series? I love the whole idea of being able to play as a lowly duke/count and role-play however I want, however I am concerned about the difficultly level.

Perhaps by buying HoI3, then Eu3, I jumped into the deep-end first, mastering both games, and that if I try CK2, it will simply be TOO simplistic and easy for my to enjoy for a significant period of time. I'm also very much into Eu3 multiplayer and have heard issues about CK2 multiplayer? How does it compare to HoI3/Eu3 Multiplayer?

 

[Darkgamma]

For your first time, you should try an Alan count. That would just about mean that you're surrounded, at first, by a hungry Georgia, a very hungry Cumania and an overpowered Seljuk empire.
By, say 1350, you should be surrounded by two-three hungry Mongol empires.

CK2 on "very hard" in the Caucasus tends to be very... interesting.

 

[Frozen_Predator]

CK2 is simply very different, and with the currently overpowered trio of HRE, Fatimids and ERE you'll have plenty of challenge expanding.

untill the mongols come and drive you into the atlantic.

but while you can expand through war and stuff its simply more fun to expand through marriages and then try to assassinate people in the way of inheriting new land.

 

[Synario]

Thats one of my concerns, that the only way to enjoy the game is by playing ridiculous tiny duchies/etc. Being King of France or something should not be 'auto-win' mode and from what you're saying it essentially is. In Eu3 playing as a major power in no way guarantees you'll survive, which I like, particularly in multiplayer. In other words, I want to play as the King of France and still have the possibility of "losing" the game?

Main points: Things like higher difficulty levels, and weaker starting positions, would seem to only artificially make the game harder, by changing number values around and delaying expansion, which does not truly make the game more difficult in and of itself.

Sorry if I sound like I'm kinda pre-biased which I am, I was hoping somebody would come along and really change my mind to be honest> I will probably wait for Eu4.

 

[NoobRage]

Thats one of my concerns, that the only way to enjoy the game is by playing ridiculous tiny duchies/etc. Being King of France or something should not be 'auto-win' mode and from what you're saying it essentially is. In Eu3 playing as a major power in no way guarantees you'll survive, which I like, particularly in multiplayer. In other words, I want to play as the King of France and still have the possibility of "losing" the game?

Main points: Things like higher difficulty levels, and weaker starting positions, would seem to only artificially make the game harder, by changing number values around and delaying expansion, which does not truly make the game more difficult in and of itself.

Sorry if I sound like I'm kinda pre-biased which I am, I was hoping somebody would come along and really change my mind to be honest> I will probably wait for Eu4.

As of 1.07, playing Kings and Emperors is no long as easy as before. Sure, you still have large armies, but you now have agressive factions inside your country that can implode your realm or turn you into a Duke again.

 

[Darkgamma]

If you want to play a big realm and have it hard, play Byzantium with a designed imbecile or someone in Ethiopia.

 

[Nyrael]

Thats one of my concerns, that the only way to enjoy the game is by playing ridiculous tiny duchies/etc. Being King of France or something should not be 'auto-win' mode and from what you're saying it essentially is. In Eu3 playing as a major power in no way guarantees you'll survive, which I like, particularly in multiplayer. In other words, I want to play as the King of France and still have the possibility of "losing" the game?

Main points: Things like higher difficulty levels, and weaker starting positions, would seem to only artificially make the game harder, by changing number values around and delaying expansion, which does not truly make the game more difficult in and of itself.

Sorry if I sound like I'm kinda pre-biased which I am, I was hoping somebody would come along and really change my mind to be honest> I will probably wait for Eu4.

Honestly, I played both EU3 and CK2 a lot and I'd say that holding your Empire in one piece is harder in CK2 and the difficulty level raises from patch to patch. EU3 in comparison I find easy, especially once I strengthen my own position.

 

[Frozen_Predator]

If you want to play a big realm and have it hard, play Byzantium with a designed imbecile or someone in Ethiopia.

Nubia is hardcore mode.

I started up one game as the king of Nubia, had everything arranged for my son to inherit some far away land, then in the second month I got dogpiled.

 

[Darkgamma]

Yeah, Nubia's a good one, too.

 

[Hootieleece]

Since EU3 and CK2 share the same engine.There will be similarities.EU3 start as OPM,expand until you have 10-15 provinces at that point generally assured of surviving.In CK2 start as a Count, get your Desmesne up to 10-15 holdings generally assured survival.Like EU3 it doesn't take a Strategic genius to win a war.Just "firstest with the mostest."The inclusion of factions has made controlling a Kingdom/Empire harder but if you keep your vassals weak and a high stat/virtue King not many problems,If you don't get revoke title/execution happy.

Like EU3 it is best if you have some goals in mind.(Like my current game started as the von Hapsburgs,One province count in 1066,My goals become HRE Emperor and Gain Austria as IRL.)Once you understand the mechanics of any of these games they tend to be easy.AI cannot compete with Human Brain.

 

[Synario]

There ya go, that's what I wanted to hear =D

I had a suspicion that the game has improved since I last reviewed it ( a while ago) but I wanted somebody to say it of their own accord without me prompting a response.

Thanks guys I'll pick it up. Is vanilla mode just fine, or are there any "must-have" mods?

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

If you play by set rules, like you have to in EU3 to have a good time (for most people), it can be quite hard. If you abuse game mechanics its easy. If you roleplay based on your character's stats, you can have a varied and interesting game. Imagine if every new monarch in EU3, your new King had a chance to make or break the Empire depending on his personality. CK2 is that game if you play by doing what your character would do.

I haven't messed with mods much, but most of the ones I have are either ahistoric or unprofessional/messy in places. I'd stick with vanilla till you get bored, which I'm not sure is possible (I will stop playing for awhile, but because I need new game mechanics to stimulate me, not more content). The game is extremely varied. But you can always mix it up.



What I love about this game over EU3 is that there's no 'instant win' button. You're not garunteed to win just about every war, for yourself to keep expanding till you encompass the world. Your king dies at an unlucky point, his sister installs herself as queen, and now you're a duke under her tyranical fist. Not always that insane, but sometimes. I've still seldom died unless I was Nubia, or something. But you kind of develope rather than devour, under the right circumstances.

 

[Galle]

There ya go, that's what I wanted to hear =D

I had a suspicion that the game has improved since I last reviewed it ( a while ago) but I wanted somebody to say it of their own accord without me prompting a response.

Thanks guys I'll pick it up. Is vanilla mode just fine, or are there any "must-have" mods?

Vanilla mode is fine on its own, but a lot of players swear by CK2+. The Prince and the Thane is also a good major overhaul mod.

And obviously I'd not be doing my job if I didn't mention A Game of Thrones, but since that's a total conversion you might want to avoid it, unless you're into fantasy in general or A Song of Ice and Fire in particular.

 

[whosthebestcop]

Plus this game is about your dynasty not a single nation. You can start as King of France and 2 centuries later be the King of Egypt with no land or claims in France.

Maybe your cousin is the King of France now so at least it is still in the family.

I think that is what is great about CK2 it is all about the family. And if family and dynasty goals are set you will have loads of fun and it will be challenging. If you just want to paint the map your color and be a gigantic realm it probably wont be challenging or fun for you.

My goal in some games is to put my dynasty on 1 or 2 handful of thrones. To really make my family the most powerful family possible. Get them their own independent realms. Then what tends to happen is half of them have a hard time staying in power the entire game and you will be forced to intervene through military, intrigue, marriage, assassination, etc to have that realm stay in the family hands.

 

[Melric]

Thats one of my concerns, that the only way to enjoy the game is by playing ridiculous tiny duchies/etc. Being King of France or something should not be 'auto-win' mode and from what you're saying it essentially is. In Eu3 playing as a major power in no way guarantees you'll survive, which I like, particularly in multiplayer.

If you do not find France 'auto-win' mode in EU3, then CK2 will be a challenge. The games are similar in that once you get to a certain size, there is not much challenge left. EU3 uses badboy to slow you down. CK2 uses factions and successions to slow you down. In both games, there is strategy in identifying and tackling the next piece of territory. The main difference between the games is establishing the causi belli to be able to wage war. EU3 is a bit blunt - imperialism and holy war. CK2 is more nuanced - bloodlines, claims, etc. In EU3 it is easier to hold a larger empire together while CK2 you are constantly fighting to do so.

 

[Bud_Backer]

EU3 was my first Paradox game and I loved it. I too questioned for a while if CK2 was sufficiently different and challenging to be worth it. In the end I bought it and find I prefer it over EU3. There is something wonderful and engaging in the combination of running a realm ( like in EU3) but also maintaining a dynasty and furthermore, taking a personal investment in the traits, and actions of individuals. You can make it as gamey as you want, or you can make it a unique personal experience.

 

[WankoStankins]

Ck2 is a lot less boring in peace time than EU3. If you ever get bored you can look around at other courts and see what kind of kids people are having or just follow one guys story or something. Or you can marry an imbecile in your court to someone and watch with amusement at their deformed babies.

 

[Sqwerlpunk]

There ya go, that's what I wanted to hear =D

I had a suspicion that the game has improved since I last reviewed it ( a while ago) but I wanted somebody to say it of their own accord without me prompting a response.

Thanks guys I'll pick it up. Is vanilla mode just fine, or are there any "must-have" mods?

I'd highly recommend Project Balance. Much better play experience than vanilla, without massive changes (and I'm an EU3 player that came to CK2 myself, if that earns me any brownie points ).

 

[Sam L]

For a while now I've been interested in buying CK2 and done some research but have been reading that apparently this is like the entry-level game and the easiest in the series? I love the whole idea of being able to play as a lowly duke/count and role-play however I want, however I am concerned about the difficultly level.

Perhaps by buying HoI3, then Eu3, I jumped into the deep-end first, mastering both games, and that if I try CK2, it will simply be TOO simplistic and easy for my to enjoy for a significant period of time. I'm also very much into Eu3 multiplayer and have heard issues about CK2 multiplayer? How does it compare to HoI3/Eu3 Multiplayer?

Sweetie, there's nothing "entry level" or "simplistic" about this game. This is PI's No. 1 game right now. Go hard or go home.

 

[Synario]

Sweetie? Lol, okay..Kinda a grown man here bro.