How does Crusader Kinsg 2 compare to EU3?

[leafs43]

They look rather similar.

The only meaningful difference I can see is that diplomacy, ruling, etc.. is a lot deeper in crusader kings.

 

[jepmaine]

They look rather similar.

The only meaningful difference I can see is that diplomacy, ruling, etc.. is a lot deeper in crusader kings.

Dynasty building vs empire building. You play a character not an empire in CK2.

 

[leafs43]

Dynasty building vs empire building. You play a character not an empire in CK2.

So what happens when you die? The game ends?

 

[Kanil]

If you don't have an heir of your dynasty to succeed you, yes.

Also France still blobs over everything, that should feel nice and familiar for you.

 

[Raventhefuhrer]

• Different Time period (roughly 1100-1400 vs 1400-1800)
• You assume the role of a family patriarch rather than a nation, and then when your character dies you play as his son. Therefore it's possible for you to start as a King, and through poor choices or bad luck, end up just a minor count, or even lose everything but decide to strike out on a crusade to establish new lands for your sons.
• Each Paradox game has its 'focus'. Hearts of Iron focuses on warfare, EU focuses on expansion, exploration, and colonization. Crusader Kings focuses on the internals of your country, and diplomacy and a great part of the game is the internal politics of keeping your vassals happy, or intriguing against your liege lord. So you don't necessarily even have to interact with other countries that much.
• I love EU3, but I consider this game to be similar enough to it to have the same flavor/feel, but it's done better. I never really was that interested in colonization/exploring and always wished there was more to do in EU3 between casus belli's and during regencies.

 

[leafs43]

Serious question, and slightly off topic....


But if the combined EU3 style of play with functions of CK2 dynastic rule, would that be the ultimate game?

 

[Raventhefuhrer]

No. I think CK2 is better than EU3 is virtually every way, and that's not a knock on EU3 which I honestly loved a lot.

Once Paradox releases an expansion pack that lets you play as Theocracies, Republics, and non-Christian nations (which you can't in Crusader Kings at the moment), and then added EU3's scope and time period to CK2's existing time period, and then pushed the start date of CK2 back a hundred years or so...then maybe we'd have the ultimate game.

 

[unmerged(209891)]

In EU3, you take total control of your country and guide it along with a hand of god, in CK2 you play as just one character, struggling to steer your realm in the direction you want it to go in. So while in EU3 when you start in 1399 as the king of France you have total control over every aspect of France, in CK2 starting as the King of France means you are a 14 year old boy surrounded by powerful and ambitious dukes with armies that could trample over your personal levies.

Its a character based game, focusing on plotting, intrigue, relationships and events that didn't exist in EU3. Its MUCH harder to "conquer the world" and paint the entire map your color, since you're just one guy trying to manage it all. Playing as a minor is much more fun engaging than one province minor's in EU3 were. Even a one province count has vassals for his cities and churches, and playing as the vassal of a liege feels totally different than playing as an independent ruler. Its really fun and probably the best Paradox game so far, definitely the most bug free and polished release. Try it.

 

[Habraka]

Serious question, and slightly off topic....


But if the combined EU3 style of play with functions of CK2 dynastic rule, would that be the ultimate game?

Yes.

 

[unmerged(209891)]

But if the combined EU3 style of play with functions of CK2 dynastic rule, would that be the ultimate game?

Honestly, CK2 pretty much already is EU3 style of play with dynastic rule. More realistic though, there won't be standing armies of 40,000 soldiers in the 15th century like there were in EU3.

 

[leafs43]

Yes.

My only real complaint about EU3 is the internal controls of your rule are rudimentary at best. Even with Heir to the Empire, there is nothing really to do about your nations politics.

EU3 definitely has those times where there is nothing to do but wait and push fast forward. It would be nice if we could control the inner workings of the nation we have.

 

[Swedish Steel!]

They look rather similar.

The only meaningful difference I can see is that diplomacy, ruling, etc.. is a lot deeper in crusader kings.

The games both have a 'vanilla' feels to them compared to what they could be, but CK2 is definitely deeper than EU3. After playing Magna Mundi I couldn't see the point of playing vanilla EU3 and even Magna Mundi, taking its outdated version into account due to development on The Game, feels just a bit better than vanilla. CK2 however has a bit more for you to do in general unlike in EU3, particularily in vanilla, when you're basically squashing irritating magical revolts and waiting until another interesting war can be declared in peace time. Again, I stress that if you're not playing magna mundi but vanilla then the faults of EU3 will be even more apparent. CK2 just has more... personality

 

[leafs43]

The games both have a 'vanilla' feels to them compared to what they could be, but CK2 is definitely deeper than EU3. After playing Magna Mundi I couldn't see the point of playing vanilla EU3 and even Magna Mundi, taking its outdated version into account due to development on The Game, feels just a bit better than vanilla. CK2 however has a bit more for you to do in general unlike in EU3, particularily in vanilla, when you're basically squashing irritating magical revolts and waiting until another interesting war can be declared in peace time. CK2 just has more... personality

From what I have read, because there are various ranks you can be within your country, it does give the game a bit more structure because you get boxed in and now have to vie for power over EU3's "choose a nation and dominate the world"

 

[Swedish Steel!]

From what I have read, because there are various ranks you can be within your country, it does give the game a bit more structure because you get boxed in and now have to vie for power over EU3's "choose a nation and dominate the world"

Yep, the ''choose a nation and dominate the world'' is part of (aside from a need to find deeper meaning ) is why I tried magna mundi and never went back. Even if you're a king in this game it's not anywhere near as comfortable as in EU3. More things can go more wrong here and there's no real easy way to fix that. But then, you have to have different goals for the two games too - the point in EU3 is to expand your nation while he point of CK2 is really to keep your nation together.

 

[robc04]

I'm sure others will disagree with me and I will be in the minority on this forum, but I think EU3 provides a more enjoyable strategy game. I think CK 2 appeals to the people who really get into the role playing aspect of it. By that I mean filling in the details of their dynasty's story with their imagination. i.e. Why did the count's wife try and kill him? I think the complexity comes from figuring out what the heck will happen when familty member X dies. Who will inherit their lands based on the succession laws? If I marry my son to this princess and the princess inherits land, who becomes the heir of that land. I haven't been able to figure out the appeal of this game yet, but there are a lot of people here who enjoy it a lot. Because of that, I haven't completely given up on it, but I am taking a bit of a break trying to get into the game. I am a play by the numbers kind of player for strategy games, and I think because of this I don't appreciate CK 2 as much as others. I also don't feel the UI's tooltips are as fleshed out and don't give a complete picture of what is really going on - for example when you give land to a guy it might appear his opinion will go up, but after you give him the land it actually goes down due to some opinion modifiers you don't see until after the land transfer takes place.

The forum members here are a helpful lot and will try to help you when things aren't clear, so that is a plus. I also don't feel CK 2 is deeper then EU III. I find it more complicated to understand, but not deeper. Again that may be because I just don't get all the aspects of it.

 

[Side]

Think of it this way. Instead of ruling a nation as some omnipotent non-entity ruler like in most games, Crusader Kings is more like ruling the world while playing the Sims. And you only control one sim. And every other sim wants your stuff.

 

[MasterofMagic]

They look rather similar.

The only meaningful difference I can see is that diplomacy, ruling, etc.. is a lot deeper in crusader kings.

Oh it's MUCH better in every way. Lots deeper. It's the SIMS goes medieval and marries The Guild 2 without all that going to the bathrooms all the time.

 

[Diet of Worms]

I've been playing CK2 for long periods at speed 4. Not at war or anything, just watching stuff unfold. Keeping an eye on my family and vassals as the whole character system works through history.

That is what I really like; in the EU3 system you might get an event where say an awkward marriage between nobles threatens you power. You'd get some choices and some consequences, maybe follow up events, but at the end of it you would have just paid your cash, or taken your stab hit, or popped your rebel stack or whatever.

In CK2, your high nobles are modelled individually. They get born, grow up, look for politically advantageous marriages, have affairs, kill people who get in there way, and generally interact. I just noticed that a duke and duchess of mine had got married, not something I want since I like my vassals weak and divided, not combining their houses. So I had a fairly important internal issue, with serious ramifications, and it just dropped out the bottom of the character system. So did the solution: the duchess in question decided to start a plot to take one of my king titles, so I had her arrested and then noticed that she didn't have an heir, and her entire estate would revert to me when she died. There is a tyranny penalty for executing your prisoners, but us far-sighted rulers are used to being misunderstood.

 

[mitrydates]

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

CK2 is a kind of sim/rpg in medieval setting. EU (1/2/3) is rather complex strategy game about empire building.

I would even risk describing it as SIMS FOR BOYS.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I am a play by the numbers kind of player for strategy games, and I think because of this I don't appreciate CK 2 as much as others. I also don't feel the UI's tooltips are as fleshed out and don't give a complete picture of what is really going on - for example when you give land to a guy it might appear his opinion will go up, but after you give him the land it actually goes down due to some opinion modifiers you don't see until after the land transfer takes place.

That's a very good observation, and I agree that CK and EU might appeal to different kinds of gamers.

I enjoy EU but find it very dry at times. Investing in a technology for 50+ years only to be rewarded with, say, a production boost of .002% just doesn't always do it for me. Everything just seems a bit formulaic at times.

CK, on the other hand, can seem a bit chaotic because things don't always seem to work on a reliable formula. In that sense, it's like people. You can predict how they ought to react, but they'll often surprise you. I love that about CK.

So both are very good games but you have to change your mindset a bit between them.