What makes this game worth buying if I already have CK2?

[Nats]

The game is growing on me. I enjoyed the demo. But I do feel myself wanting to see a picture of the king like you can in CK2 - see him growing older etc. I feel that EU4 like EU3 before it is lacking in the human element.

CK2 obviously has this rich tapestry of family members and vassels etc all growing older, dying, being born - it makes the game relatable and you feel as if you are actually the king. EU4 seems to be very distant - you are obviously playing a game not as a ruler but as some entity overseeing the development of the country. I think this makes the game feel a bit cold in comparison to CK2.

This is the only part of EU4 that I dont really like. And its the only thing I am really hesitant about in terms of buying the game. Its certainly better than EU3 but is that enough when it is still behind CK2? I love the graphics and the ideas/missions etc but I am going to play CK2 again to just see how much of this is in CK2 to see if I really do NEED to buy EU4.

So in your opion what makes the game better than CK2 for you? If you already have CK2 why are you buying EU4?

 

[unperson]

For me the trade system alone is enough.

 

[Shiranui]

Well, the whole point is to play as a nation rather than a person. It has a global focus, and a whole different timespan. I don't think you can really compare the two games.

 

[Dr. Dan]

It's a world map to conquer, not just mostly one continent.

Also, the power of the state is more fun than diddling with a ruler. (imo)

 

[unmerged(773066)]

I'm more interested in the transition to Nation States than familiar ties, so a game like that let's me grow, influence and project to the depth EU does makes it a must-have for me.

 

[TalorianEmporer]

Because you get to explore and conquer almost anywhere in the world. You also get to watch randomness unfold.

 

[Lessing]

I always played CK2 seeing myself as "the country", not the dude with the crown. Because when he died, his son got it, and thus I "was the country".

This is kinda the opposite of what you feel. I enjoyed CK2 immensely however.

For you, it's an easy decision: if you enjoyed EU3 nevertheless, then get EU4. It also has more replay value than CK2 imo.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

So in your opion what makes the game better than CK2 for you? If you already have CK2 why are you buying EU4?

There is nothing that makes EU4 better than CK2 for me, nor anything that makes CK2 better than EU4 for me.

The reason that I am buying it is that I consider it a great game, I like playing great games, and I like playing different games rather than playing the same game all the time. There are many great strategy games out there for those who look, and most of them are fairly simple to master in singleplayer, including PDS games, so why would I want to limit my playing to only a few of them?

The only game I find myself playing year after year is Dominions 3 (and before that Dominions 2, and when it is released, presumably Dominions 4 instead), because it is so much deeper in multiplayer than any other strategy games I have ever played.

 

[RX2000]

I dont really understand your question. They are 2 totally different games.

It sounds to me like the game you really need is CK3.

 

[knul]

It's like asking why to buy HoI3 if you already have CK2. EU4 and CK2 are very different kinds of games, despite their similarities.

CK2 is basically a RPG/Strategy hybrid, while EU4 is much more focussed on strategy. So if you really like to follow people and see them grow, have relationships and such, you will have much more fun with CK2.

One thing I really like about the EU series as compated to other Paradox games is its epicness. You have this feel of really changing history on a grandiose scale, over a long time impacting most of the world.

 

[lokossus]

As much as I like managing dynasties in CK2, that's all it can ever be about: managing dynasties. I like managing countries more, and EU4 is far, far more complex and engaging in doing so.

They're very different games.

 

[HappyMephisto]

But every country still has a ruler - he just has no face, admittedly. I bet however there will be a few mods for events and such to roleplay the ruler, especially since monarchstats are somewhat unchangeable as of yet.
Reasons to play as fan of CK2:
1. You get to do personal unions
2. There is colonization and better trade!
3. More countries to found
4. Better mechanisms for HRE

 

[n000b]

Well, since you have Eu3 with expansions you should already know why the EU games is so much better than Ck2..

Imo Ck2 is just really shallow and.... meh... compared to the super deep and awesome Europa Universalis games. Have'nt even tried the demo yet, but from what i have seen, it seems like a really polished and expanded version of eu3. Of course its gonna be great.

 

[kingsword]

And IMO EU series is shallow compared to both CK and Vicky series. Divine Wind was a disaster and EU4 turns the mistakes of it up to eleven.

 

[Nats]

Well, since you have Eu3 with expansions you should already know why the EU games is so much better than Ck2..

Well I own CK2, HOI2/3, Vic2 and EU3 but I have played and enjoyed CK2 a lot more than any other Paradox game. I enjoyed EU3 the least of all of them, even less that EU:Rome, probably beause of its impersonality. This is why I am a little concerned about whether buying EU4 for me would be a good move and value for money for me, thus the OP question.

I can relate to CK2s lack of vastness - it is starting to wear a little thin for me after 60 or so hours just playing dynasty after dynasty. But I think I will start a CK2 Portugal game just to see what its like compared to EU4's Portugal game.

The other alterantive for me is Vics Heart of Darkness as Vics time period does enthrall me a bit more than EU4s. But Vic 2 is looking a bit old now. I havent given Vic 2 a decent chance yet.

 

[Antiscamp]

The game is growing on me. I enjoyed the demo. But I do feel myself wanting to see a picture of the king like you can in CK2 - see him growing older etc. I feel that EU4 like EU3 before it is lacking in the human element.

I agree. I wish they'd take some of the character functions in CKII and implement them in EUIV as well. I say some. Maybe make army generals, Explorers and Admirals more detailed too with specific strengths and weaknesses and not only political leaders.

Also, while I'm at it, give the diplomat an on-map character like the missionary too. More funny characters doing absurd stuff and creating memorable stories, like in CKII, that's what I'd like.

 

[Mikebloke]

I think EU series does have a faceless factor which goes against it, CKII is heavy in characters of course, Vicky series has ideology based flags, HoI has generals and admiral photos and many other unit and event images.

EU does have adviser images, but because they are fairly generic they don't make you feel like its anything special. Your leader's stats still plays a fairly important part in EU series, its a shame there isn't an image, even if its as generic as the advisers. At the extreme end, CKII cultures and religions could have impacted on how your EUIV leader looked like... oh well.

EUIV is a hundred times better than EUIII, that is undeniable though.

 

[trcanberra]

Well, the whole point is to play as a nation rather than a person. It has a global focus, and a whole different timespan. I don't think you can really compare the two games.

This - I love CKII but the different focus and timeframe here appeal. I would like to see some monarch tweaks in a dlc though.

 

[mocoman2001]

for me i become emotionally attached to the nation it self. when it does well i am happy, when its suffering i suffer a little bit to.

 

[Persiani]

I dont know why, I just want it because EU3 was the first paradox game i played and i loved it so much! then ck2 came and i loved it even more! Got over 200 hours played