I've been thinking about buying either CK or Rome (both have a dynamic dynasty system, if im not mistaken), objectively (iknow i'm in the CK forums) which one is better?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't come to this forum very often but I like CK better. If you want more control over your dynasty and more options concerning nations/dynasties you can pick from, definitely go with CK. Unless you like Rome history or the era of Rome, you probably should steer clear of Rome altogether. But that's just my opinion. 
If you're looking for a dynastic roleplaying strategy game, then go with Crusader Kings. In general, Crusader Kings is much more "beefy" than Rome is. Crusader Kings is primarily, of course, about building and maintaining a dynasty. Rome has a rather quirky and interesting "dynastic" system, but it's not very in-depth or interactive, and its really just a side note. Often you'll forget about the people and dynasties that had run your nation, unless your a monarchy of course.
Rome in general just has less to do. By the mid point of the game, you will probably have no more enemies and thus it becomes a game of managing your senate and political factions (with VV), but the problem is of course this is boring to many.
I think the general consensus is Rome was disappointing for many. Of course, this isn't the truth for everyone, but many people didn't really like Rome. I would advise you to purchase CK.
Rome in general just has less to do. By the mid point of the game, you will probably have no more enemies and thus it becomes a game of managing your senate and political factions (with VV), but the problem is of course this is boring to many.
I think the general consensus is Rome was disappointing for many. Of course, this isn't the truth for everyone, but many people didn't really like Rome. I would advise you to purchase CK.
Rome had potential, and got more interesting with VV expansion. But it is too limited in scope. There are only a few nations around ... and only way to spread into barabarian lands is through colonization, which isn't very fun.
It just seems that Rome is EU with a bit of CK attached.
CK is more engaging in my opinion, with alot more replayability. For some reason, managing the Roman Senate in EU-Rome just feels the same every time. But in CK being the King of France is never the same experience.
I think Rome is to be considered an excellent platform on which to build CK2
Got both, since I like Roman history.
Different games, so direct comparison is not really relevant. I play both quite equally.
Basically, both games need expansion to be really good. VV for Rome and Deus Vult for CK. There is new 2.3 beta patch for VV available now, which fixes lot of issues.
Good games both, CK+DV has more variation, though.
Different games, so direct comparison is not really relevant. I play both quite equally.
Basically, both games need expansion to be really good. VV for Rome and Deus Vult for CK. There is new 2.3 beta patch for VV available now, which fixes lot of issues.
Good games both, CK+DV has more variation, though.
Preferences are always subjective. And thus debatable. In this context, it depends what you expect from the game as a player.
But... CK is more original game than Rome. If you already own some strategy games, then purchasing CK instead of Rome will probably surprise you more (pleasantly), and will give you more fresh gaming experience.
But... CK is more original game than Rome. If you already own some strategy games, then purchasing CK instead of Rome will probably surprise you more (pleasantly), and will give you more fresh gaming experience.
CK is my favorite game of all time because it's the most original. It's a fantastic game and yet it still has so much potential.
Rome is up there. But mostly because I'm interested in that time period. I think that game also has a lot of potential.
But CK will remain my favorite.
Rome is up there. But mostly because I'm interested in that time period. I think that game also has a lot of potential.
But CK will remain my favorite.
Plus both have different "feel".
In Rome, you don't really care about characters, in CK, you kind of grow attachment for some of them.
Rome is more about "state", CK is more about "family" aka dynasty.
In Rome, you don't really care about characters, in CK, you kind of grow attachment for some of them.
Rome is more about "state", CK is more about "family" aka dynasty.
I tried Rome the other day. I loved it, but I don't think I can run both simultaneously! Both are different with steep learning curves. I intend to focus on CK for now.
But again, I loved Rome (with Vae VIctus and 2.3 beta patch). It has wonderful graphics (LOL), and in my 3 hour delve seemed to have more than enough depth!!
But again, I loved Rome (with Vae VIctus and 2.3 beta patch). It has wonderful graphics (LOL), and in my 3 hour delve seemed to have more than enough depth!!
+1. Especially when funny stuff happens, like the whole paedo-Bishop mentor thing, or a blind promiscuous 40 year old woman, or whatever. Rome's "funny things" are stuff like an under 18 not being Populist.
o
Rome had potential, and got more interesting with VV expansion. But it is too limited in scope. There are only a few nations around ... and only way to spread into barabarian lands is through colonization, which isn't very fun.
It just seems that Rome is EU with a bit of CK attached.
CK is more engaging in my opinion, with alot more replayability. For some reason, managing the Roman Senate in EU-Rome just feels the same every time. But in CK being the King of France is never the same experience.
I think Rome is to be considered an excellent platform on which to build CK2
I concur with you TempestDK. I too have played both games a lot with all the expansions and patches and agree that CK has the edge on unique re-playability. I find EUR to be more predictable, whereas CK always has a way of bringing in an element of surprise!! For me, I gravitate to CK most often, but EUR and EU3 MMP are a hoot too!!!
My PI priority list:
1. CK DV
2. EU3 MMP
3. EUR VV
4. HOI2 DD
Disagree. With the current deal you can pick up both Rome and Vae Victis for Rome's usual price -- and Rome with VV is a nice game, so it's worth it.
Still prefer CK though
Still prefer CK though
Disagree. With the current deal you can pick up both Rome and Vae Victis for Rome's usual price -- and Rome with VV is a nice game, so it's worth it.
Still prefer CK though
i'll let this pass.. ima wait for a discount on CK:complete. Thanks for the tip.
I've had plenty of interesting characters in Rome:VV and maybe their children but the dynasties were mostly unremarkable and you don't really feel involved and you'll forget about that guy you posted as governor off in Spain.
In CK you feel attached to your dynasty.
In CK you feel attached to your dynasty.
I also find that involving the females in the game as more than just a stat benefits CK. I find in EU Rome, they are a non-entity really.