If I love CK2, which would I like better Vic2 or EU3 -- not waiting for 4 atm.

[unmerged(512626)]

As the title asks and then I'd also like to add which one is more accessible? I learned Vicky 2 was reportedly a good bit harder to play than CK2, which I did not realize.

Otherwise, I'm more interested in politics/economy than combat, but combat is OK. For now, mostly looking to play at a later time period is one reason I'm mixing it up a bit.

I inquired about Vicky on that forum and was advised the game is significantly better with the DLC. Meanwhile I'm trying to stave off the urge to buy the DLC until it goes on sale...

But if EU3 is said to be better or more likely what I'm looking for then that solves that problem, for now.

Anyway, thought I'd ask here since I'm comparing all 3 games and many of you have such and presumably, the majority here, like CK2 a lot. Thanks.

 

[pauli133]

I found Victoria 2 to be nothing at all like CK2, and boring as all get out.

 

[PureBeef]

Its too bad you didn't post this sooner, Vicky II was on sale at GG for like $4 the other day. Anyway, I prefer EUIII to all other PI games, I had a better feel for it than Vicky II. The ability to colonize the New World and become a major power was great, not to mention fighting off the hordes. Vicky II is still a fun game in its own right, but I just prefer EU III. As I read your question more in detail though, your attraction to politics and economy you should definitely get Vicky II. The game has political parties, and all that, so your country can get overthrown by communist rebels and you then become the leader of a socialist state instead (not game over). You can make important decisions like to abolish slavery, colonize parts of the world, industrialize etc... The politics in EU III is not really existent, you pretty much jut choose your type of government and deal with neighbours. Sorry if I wasn't really any help.

 

[Darrigan]

I prefer EU3 over Vicky 2. Vicky 2 is good, but it couldn't keep me entertained as long as EU3 did.

 

[unmerged(425486)]

if you like to watch your chosen country blob endlessly across the globe, pick eu3

if you like to watch your chosen country blob endlessly across the globe with a better economic system, pick vicky 2

 

[theKing1988]

I prefer EU3 over Vicky 2. Vicky 2 is good, but it couldn't keep me entertained as long as EU3 did.

I agree with Darrigan on this one.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

The economic-tech aspect of Vicky 2 is the basis of the game, war is really just the extension of diplomacy, which is a function of economy - unless of course you're tryuing to RP something like a world conquest. It has a large learning curve though, and the peculiarities of the economic system require some thought as well. If you want a game where you can start as 1836 Belgium or Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and through patient improvement of economics and prestiege gain the title of Great Power, at which point you begin to race for colonies an build armies to withstand the oncoming Great War - choose Vicky.

In EU3 there's much more war and the tech & economy systems are much simpler than in Vicky2 - though more advanced than CK2 to be sure. It will be easier to learn coming from CK2 than Vicky. The game does a bit poorer in the later stages (Napoleonic Wars) but so does Vicky. The gamespan is much longer, so the changes the world goes through might seem larger - you'll deal with the Reformation, New World colonies and revolts. If you want more war and grand plans - choose EU3.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

if you like to watch your chosen country blob endlessly across the globe, pick eu3

if you like to watch your chosen country blob endlessly across the globe with a better economic system, pick vicky 2

*loses my drink*

PureBeef -- I did get lucky and get Victoria on sale, not quite $4 good though. I was hoping GG would follow with a DLC sale, but so far, no cigar. Reading over the responses ... more are welcome. I'm a bit torn now, sounds like EU3 is a better game -- but not sure if I'd like the non-existent politics as much.

 

[Thure]

I personaly prefer Vicky I over Vicky II. And EU between the both. I don't really like Vicky II...

 

[unmerged(512626)]

The economic-tech aspect of Vicky 2 is the basis of the game, war is really just the extension of diplomacy, which is a function of economy - unless of course you're tryuing to RP something like a world conquest. It has a large learning curve though, and the peculiarities of the economic system require some thought as well. If you want a game where you can start as 1836 Belgium or Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and through patient improvement of economics and prestiege gain the title of Great Power, at which point you begin to race for colonies an build armies to withstand the oncoming Great War - choose Vicky.

In EU3 there's much more war and the tech & economy systems are much simpler than in Vicky2 - though more advanced than CK2 to be sure. It will be easier to learn coming from CK2 than Vicky. The game does a bit poorer in the later stages (Napoleonic Wars) but so does Vicky. The gamespan is much longer, so the changes the world goes through might seem larger - you'll deal with the Reformation, New World colonies and revolts. If you want more war and grand plans - choose EU3.

Ugh forum lag. I completely missed this post. This is great comparison and answers my question on difficulty level....thank you. Still a tough choice.

 

[Darrigan]

Don't get it wrong. EU3 is not all about conquering stuff and killing people. In most of my games, I've sat around fighting nobody, instead focussing on colonisation and economy. It's perfectly possible to play a peaceful EU3 game.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Depends on what you define as "better game". What makes your gameplay experience more positive? Which parts of CK2 do you like, what would you prefer improved? How do you play your games and what moments would you define as "fun"?

Also: try reading through some of the more popular AARs over at the forums, they might give you some insight into how the games work.

 

[RobRoy3]

EU3.

I thought I'd enjoy the politics/economic focus of Vicky, but I didn't. EU3 is still my favorite Paradox game, even if it's languishing a bit since the announcement of EUIV (Winter '13, IIRC). Frankly I found Vicky a bit boring, but that was pre-expansions. Like HOI3, and even EU3, I gather that Vicky was weak on it's initial release, though the expansions have supposedly made it much better. I sincerely hope Paradox is looking to CK2 as an example of how games should be on release, though its size and scope might've made QA tasks easier.

 

[sergeant113]

EUIII started out with everyone more or less on equal footings, except the uncivilized Asian 0.o. End games are very drastically different from one playthrough to another.

Vicky starts out with England being able to steam roll almost everyone across the map, even the giant Qing Dynasty. End games are the same with Britain leading everyone else in everything. Also, the Great War is completely unfun to play.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Don't get it wrong. EU3 is not all about conquering stuff and killing people. In most of my games, I've sat around fighting nobody, instead focussing on colonisation and economy. It's perfectly possible to play a peaceful EU3 game.

Of course! However peaceful EU3 games have less choices and complexity than peaceful Vicky games. They may be as much fun, or even more so - depends on your preferences. Some people find the sheer amount of data in Vicky 2 simply too overwhelming, and the pie-charts too tedious and mystifying.

 

[Blond_Knight]

EUIII is a mix of addictive fun and potentially rage inducing frustration at the mechanics. The A.I. loves to hop on the war bandwagon simply because of nonsensical guarantees (especially in Ireland). I won't even get started on Defender of the Faith.

 

[siis]

Imo Eu3 is more about Empire building (expanding on the map) and Vicky2 about Empire managing (expanding you influence with industries, spheres and colonies, managing the transition from monarchie to democracy - it's not about gaining land by war). As far as I know there are demo versions for both games, you should try them. I think the Vicky2 demo includes the latest expansion? Not sure if there is a demo for EU3 complete or wathever the full game bundle is called.

 

[SirCrocodile]

I'd say Victoria II has more of what you want. It has a greater focus on economics and politics and less on combat. That doesn't mean the combat is in any way simple, but it's not the most important point of the game. It's true that the learning curve is hard in comparison to CK2, but don't let that put you off. It's intuitive once you get the hang of it, moreso than EU3 in my opinion.

Buy VC2 and the DLC at the same time, it's worth it.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Imo Eu3 is more about Empire building (expanding on the map) and Vicky2 about Empire managing (expanding you influence with industries, spheres and colonies, managing the transition from monarchie to democracy - it's not about gaining land by war). As far as I know there are demo versions for both games, you should try them. I think the Vicky2 demo includes the latest expansion? Not sure if there is a demo for EU3 complete or wathever the full game bundle is called.

I think HTTT was the last EU3 expansion that had a demo, but I'm just not sure. Vicky 2 and AHD both have demos.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

Of course! However peaceful EU3 games have less choices and complexity than peaceful Vicky games. They may be as much fun, or even more so - depends on your preferences. Some people find the sheer amount of data in Vicky 2 simply too overwhelming, and the pie-charts too tedious and mystifying.

Pie Charts? Maybe I should look at the AARs. I think one thing I've solved is to wait until the DLC is on sale in case it is too much or not my cup of tea. I have failed at my last two game purchases -- enough is enough there. But if a game is $5-10 or such I"ll take a chance.

I play mostly peaceful games in CK2 and favor the intrigue but I also like to be powerful in my own right -- so people fear going to war with me and to have a dynasty controlling as much as possible -- but not through blobby conquest. Come to think of it it may be Diplomacy options are more important than economic features.

I can see now why people have both games (or all 3) -- this is most interesting the different approaches.