How much like Sengoku?

[gord96]

Hey guys. Looking forward to CK2, but must admit I haven't followed it much. Huge fan of EU3 and Victoria 2, but I really found Sengoku not a lot of fun. I have been reading some previews and some mention to CK2 being similar to Sengoku is mentioned. Just curious if this is true? I can't even pinpoint what I didn't like about Sengoku. Maybe it was just the problems with the blobs. Maybe it was just the setting.

Either way I haven't played CK1, but really like the idea of a game like EU3 that focuses on kings, dukes and counts and on character development. So I guess my question is, is CK2 more like a family/character driven EU3 or Sengoku?

Thanks very much for your time.

 

[Enravota]

Genchi genbutsu. Try the demo to see whether you like it or not.

 

[celt43]

Hey guys. Looking forward to CK2, but must admit I haven't followed it much. Huge fan of EU3 and Victoria 2, but I really found Sengoku not a lot of fun. I have been reading some previews and some mention to CK2 being similar to Sengoku is mentioned. Just curious if this is true? I can't even pinpoint what I didn't like about Sengoku. Maybe it was just the problems with the blobs. Maybe it was just the setting.

Either way I haven't played CK1, but really like the idea of a game like EU3 that focuses on kings, dukes and counts and on character development. So I guess my question is, is CK2 more like a family/character driven EU3 or Sengoku?

Thanks very much for your time.

I tried the CK2 demo and to be honest in my opinion it is Sengoku based in Europe with European faces.. It may have slightly updated features but still to me the same game, just different graphics.
I will have more feelings on the matter tomorrow when the game unlocks..

 

[bitparity]

It's not even close to Sengoku.

The main differences are in fact the limitations. In Sengoku, you had to conquer or be conquered. There was no middle ground. Frequently intrigue was only a backdrop to brute well-timed force.

In CK2, it takes forever to fabricate a claim, and you can't just up and seize territory from either your vassals or your neighbors without incurring the wrath from somebody. There is an odd "balance of power" that tends to happen in CK2 (not to the level of V2) but certainly far more than in Sengoku.

It's a game that absolutely requires a brain for long term planning, influence, and treachery, rather than he-with-the-biggest-army wins.

 

[gord96]

It's not even close to Sengoku.

The main differences are in fact the limitations. In Sengoku, you had to conquer or be conquered. There was no middle ground. Frequently intrigue was only a backdrop to brute well-timed force.

In CK2, it takes forever to fabricate a claim, and you can't just up and seize territory from either your vassals or your neighbors without incurring the wrath from somebody. There is an odd "balance of power" that tends to happen in CK2 (not to the level of V2) but certainly far more than in Sengoku.

It's a game that absolutely requires a brain for long term planning, influence, and treachery, rather than he-with-the-biggest-army wins.

That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks!

You hit the nail on the head with Sengoku and the conquer or be conquered gameplay. That was probably what I didn't like. Glad to hear CK2 has more to it.

 

[Maldenic]

I haven't played CKII or the demo yet, so I don't know how similar the UI and mechanics are, but as bitparity mentions CKII requires claims on territory you take whereas Sengoku does not. In the first CK it didn't matter how big an army I had, if I crushed the armies of the enemy but didn't have any legitimate claims to their territory, then all I would be able to get in a peace settlement was some gold. This is the difference of setting: CK is about claims to territory, Sengoku is about controlling territory. Note that in Sengoku, once you successfully besieged a province, it was yours, you didn't need to sue for peace to own it.

There is also the technology system, though that is only a small part of the game. More important is the legal system in CKII, something which should not be overlooked.

 

[celt43]

It's not even close to Sengoku.

The main differences are in fact the limitations. In Sengoku, you had to conquer or be conquered. There was no middle ground. Frequently intrigue was only a backdrop to brute well-timed force.

In CK2, it takes forever to fabricate a claim, and you can't just up and seize territory from either your vassals or your neighbors without incurring the wrath from somebody. There is an odd "balance of power" that tends to happen in CK2 (not to the level of V2) but certainly far more than in Sengoku.

It's a game that absolutely requires a brain for long term planning, influence, and treachery, rather than he-with-the-biggest-army wins.

Well I hope your right, the big unlocking tomorrow will tell. Please remember we are all entitled to our opinion.

 

[gord96]

I haven't played CKII or the demo yet, so I don't know how similar the UI and mechanics are, but as bitparity mentions CKII requires claims on territory you take whereas Sengoku does not. In the first CK it didn't matter how big an army I had, if I crushed the armies of the enemy but didn't have any legitimate claims to their territory, then all I would be able to get in a peace settlement was some gold. This is the difference of setting: CK is about claims to territory, Sengoku is about controlling territory. Note that in Sengoku, once you successfully besieged a province, it was yours, you didn't need to sue for peace to own it.

There is also the technology system, though that is only a small part of the game. More important is the legal system in CKII, something which should not be overlooked.

Yes all good points! It has been a while since I played Sengoku, and I think it was that lack of 'diplomacy' that turned me off of it. Thanks again for all the posts. I pre-ordered CK2 and look forward to playing it tomorrow.

 

[vwclaymore]

Sengoku isn't as fun b/c it lacks personality in my opinion: minimal diplomacy, minimal character interaction, limited successful strategies, and constant battle focus just made it flat. From playing the demo and the original CK, CKII will be infinitely more enjoyable.

 

[Dragnar]

I played the Sengoku demo and was bored to tears by the one-dimensional war focus. It felt more like an engine-test for CK2 than a proper Paradox game. It's closer to playing Civ than EU3.
I assume it's intentionally simplified to lure people into the glory that is Paradox Grand Strategy without frustrating them with the enormous entry barrier Paradox games have always had. Now, that's obviously a good thing if it gets more people to play and makes Paradox more money for more games and expansions, but after years and years of playing them, I personally felt too limited to have fun with it.
CK2 feels so much deeper and more alive.

 

[kingsword]

It's 100 times better, Sengoku was worst Paradox game while this is among top best.

 

[Rob de Hard]

Sengoku was basically a terribly boring tech demo for CK2. Without any of the actual content that makes CK2 winsauce.
I didn't buy it based on the demo - awful 'game'.

 

[SAS]

Well I would argue that they are two totally separate games and CKII is not Sengoku in Europe. But as the others said try the demo. I do think CKII is better that Sengoku but I also like it too.

 

[unmerged(209891)]

Its way, way better in every aspect. Sengoku was pretty awful, if you don't buy this because of Sengoku you will be missing out.


-just wanted to add, this is probably the best Paradox game ever made. There really isnt enough to say about it, its absolutely amazing.

 

[sherdil]

Different and fantastic. Though be warned that it does have a coupla initial glitches here and there - normal for a paradox vanilla release.

 

[unmerged(209891)]

Different and fantastic. Though be warned that it does have a coupla initial glitches here and there - normal for a paradox vanilla release.

Far less than any Paradox release, ever. Bugs are minimal, and I mean minimal.