Why do you prever Europa Universalis 4 over Crusader Kings 2?

[Count Hasimir Fenring]

I haven't played enough CK2. I've watched how to play videos, I've played a bit. I marry myself and my heir to people with good stats. I fabricate on neighbors, get frustrated that I can raise levies until after I DoW and so frequently my enemy manages to kill one of my levies before I can combine them. Need to work on that, but I haven't because I just find it annoying.

Most of the time I don't really know what I'm supposed to be doing. Maybe starting as an OPM in Ireland is not actually a good way to play, or maybe I'm trying to play it too much like EU4. Maybe it would be better to pick a midsized realm and just manage it internally for a bit.

CK II requires you to be a little more self-motivated. I usually enter a game with a specific goal in mind like "start as Sergios of Naples and form Sicily" or "start as Zoroastrian and became the Saohysant." I actually don't recommend Ireland because I think it's boring. My first game of CK II was as Theodoros Kaukadenos, Count of Prusa. I recommend playing as an HRE vassal or something of that sort. More interaction that way and I think you learn faster while having a little more fun.

 

[PedroVargas]

I have 500hrs in CK and over 8000hrs in EU, so I'm biased. But I'd say:

EU pros: The UI looks crisper, maps are smoother and more pleasing for the eyes. Warfare is better. And as much as I like personalities and human intrigue, I prefer nations, because I get into role playing and they never feel like an abstract idea to me.

 

[Philadelphus]

In my case (116 hours in CK II, 1112 in EU IV), it's the fact that you play specific characters in CK II and they keep dying which breaks my concentration. In EU IV I can pick a country in 1444 and play it for almost 400 years, slowly watching it develop with my idea picks over that time period (at worst I might form a new country but that's about it). With CK II I get a character with random stats and traits, which wouldn't be so bad except that every few days to decades they die and I suddenly need to get used to a new character who may be completely different, completely breaking my flow as I adjust to the new character and figure out which of the plans I've been working on for the past few years need to get scrapped and which new ones I need to start making. Obviously that appeals to some people, but I personally prefer the longer-term planning in EU IV (I remain open to the possibility that I'm just bad at CK II and it's entirely possible to make long-term plans of the same sort and I just haven't figured out how to do it).

There's also the fact that I always feel like a game of CK II could end in a few minutes if I get unlucky and lose my heirs and die, whereas in EU IV you can usually reach a point fairly easily where you don't need to worry about that. I also absolutely love exploration and colonization which there isn't any of in CK II (so, I guess I prefer the time period more).

I do enjoy some facets of CK II; for instance I like upgrading holdings in provinces more than EU IV's building system (especially playing as a merchant republic, something I've failed spectacularly at every time I've tried but I love the idea of the family holdings).

 

[Mizz2]

I like both games, but the thing about CKII is the stupidly small amount of historical flavor, which is lacking to me.
The DHEs in EU4 are making the game a lot more interesting.

 

[Robert II]

I haven't played enough CK2. I've watched how to play videos, I've played a bit. I marry myself and my heir to people with good stats. I fabricate on neighbors, get frustrated that I can raise levies until after I DoW and so frequently my enemy manages to kill one of my levies before I can combine them. Need to work on that, but I haven't because I just find it annoying.

Most of the time I don't really know what I'm supposed to be doing. Maybe starting as an OPM in Ireland is not actually a good way to play, or maybe I'm trying to play it too much like EU4. Maybe it would be better to pick a midsized realm and just manage it internally for a bit.

Ireland was boring for me even when new. Try one of the bigger hre vassals Bohemia,Tuscany or Lombardy. If you don't fancy having a liege looking down at you the Spanish kingdoms are also a decent start you'll have claims on each others kingdoms,muslims to holy war,brothers to kill and laws to change away from bloody gavlekind.

 

[Siegfriedfr]

The main reasons i stopped playting CK2 are :
- your ruler randomly dying and your realm breaking appart afterwise
- the terrible lag after a few centuries, which is totally due to the indian subcontinent addition

For a short while, the EU4 style coalitions between muslisms and catholics against the player were a gamebreaking feature until they fixed it.

 

[theBoheme]

EU4 is more deliberate. In CK2 you have to wait for things like religion change, culture change, etc, with much less control over your empire at large. EU4 feels more crisp as well and you can colonize the New World, what's not to love?

 

[fishpilot80]

I play both and like each for their own reasons. CK2 is a dynasty simulator and somehow feels more alive to me with all the character interactions and the fact that your vassals are fighting their own wars and stuff. EU4 is a country simulator and lets me conquer Mexico as Tunis.

 

[Sfan]

Having more than 1000 hours on both, I'd mostly say that the two games are entirely different. This is a common mistake to think that CKII is designed for conquest and to judge it based on that. Let's face it, everything relating to the growth of your country is backwards compared with EUIV.
You have way less control over your economy, combat is way less interesting, there are no such things as going over FL, hiring advisors or taking loans, besides the one from the Jews, so if you're attacked by someone stronger, you basically lose, alliances are super abusable, diplomacy is really simple. The game in itself is a lot less complex, I don't mean easier, but less complex in the sense that there are limited options to make the difference between a good and a bad player, most of the game is either random like people dying when you want it or when that screw you, or you can't have an impact on it like warfare.
However, with all DLCs turned in, there is a lot more immersion, and RP possibilities, which is a totally different kind of fun.

I play more EUIV because I prefer to have challenge, to push myself to the limit, to theorycraft, to calculate, to plan ahead. But I enjoy CKII when I want to chill, to have fun, to write a story. I usually tend to play EUIV a lot during the holidays, for instance, and CKII after a hard day's work or when I finished an important project.

 

[YuriiH]

- your ruler randomly dying and your realm breaking appart afterwise

That is exactly the spirit of being a monarch.
The good monarch thinks about what will happen after his/her death with everything he/she managed to build.
The bad monarch says “After us, the deluge”, and his/her realm breaks apart afterwise.
(By the way, I'll give a hint: always aim for elective kinds of government, thus you'll have either your favourite dynasty member on the throne after current ruler's death, or at the very least a member with the highest diplomacy)

 

[Supermilk]

That is exactly the spirit of being a monarch.
The good monarch thinks about what will happen after his/her death with everything he/she managed to build.
The bad monarch says “After us, the deluge”, and his/her realm breaks apart afterwise.
(By the way, I'll give a hint: always aim for elective kinds of government, thus you'll have either your favourite dynasty member on the throne after current ruler's death, or at the very least a member with the highest diplomacy)

I got a healthy dose of that in my last game. I became a Double Duke at 73 with gavelkind succession... I mighta rage quit when I saw half my hard earned, meticulously built mini Kingdom shattered. My brother despite getting the worse half, has a stupid high Mil score...

 

[Sfan]

Assassinate him :3

 

[Supermilk]

I want to, but his court loves him, and dear old dad had abysmal intrigue so it's not my strong suit.

I should be happy with the progress I made actually. Wessex seems like an easy start, but the starting leader rolls some really bad stats. I held all of the southern coast of England in addition to having several tributaries. My provinces are very well upgraded already. I can probably play it out I learned quite a bit from the run too

 

[Aldahen]

...and over 8000hrs in EU...

Wow! You realize you have played the game almost a full year?

 

[Big Bad France]

I really like both games a lot. I've been playing a lot more EU4 lately because it offers a greater challenge, but adding a kingdom to your realm through a well placed marriage and a little intrigue is still very thrilling.

 

[Monkbel]

I find CK2 much more straightforward and one-way. If you are getting big and good you end up steamrolling over everything and it gets boring too soon. Also, there are not that many interesting mechanics for between wars.

In EU4, I love colonization and fighting natives so much; this angle makes it super-fun while you are not blobbing in Europe. Also, blobbing in EU4 is much more difficult because of so many mechanics, including HRE, AE, League Wars, coring, overextension, etc. etc. I find EU4 more challenging because of that.

 

[brifbates]

CK 2 1350 hrs on Steam plus a truckload before they forced you to migrate to Steam (was that patch 1.10?) so probably 3500ish hrs, EU IV 5200 hrs...

Both have their issues, both have their strengths, both are enjoyable.

The biggest strength of CK 2 is the stories. If you aren't into that sort of thing you're probably not going to really rate the game overall.

EU IV is better at most everything except storytelling-better economic system overall (although I do like the individual province development of CK 2-build holdings and improve them better than the EU IV system-click a button and done), better diplomacy, better warfare.

 

[Mcwynne]

Ck2 has always been a bit frustrating for me. I really want to love it and have around 100h (not much by paradox standards) played and yet have never felt that I've truly gotten into the game.

I really love the concept for the game and its great potential of emergent story telling but parts of it are just not working for me. The sort of role play/strategy hybrid it seems to be going for just doesn't do it for me with both parts being way too shallow. The reduced abstraction with actual characters makes me want more actual interactions than the game offers (WoL improved this to a surprising extent considering how simple it is, but is not quite enough), this is not helped by the fact that your characters keep dying all the time, which together with how frequently land flips around makes it hard to feel invested in anything (gavelkind is not a fun game mechanic yet very important for the feel of the setting, and in itself another level of the games awkwardness). Because of this I actually get a more satisfying role playing experience from EU4 and Stellaris.

Another problem for me is of chaotic the game is and yes I get that this can just as well be a positive (it is chaos after all). While great for the the story telling aspect of the game, it can completely screw up the game, especially for relatively inexperienced players as myself. Not only in the obvious, ways of all your family randomly dying in quick succession for whatever reason. But also in would be positive ways, I for example accidentally inherited England in my most recent attempt at getting back into the game, great! Instead of the HRE intrigue game I wanted to play, I guess I am not playing as the King of England except he is Italian.

I get how that can be appealing to some, to just role with the punches and sort of play an improvisational theater role playing strategy whatever game. Again in concept and from a game design perspective, ck2 is one of the most interesting games in existence, but interesting is not always the same as good. When play rpgs I usually prefer to actually play the role that I chose to play.

I guess I had a lot to more to get off my chest than I thought.

 

[Jaydeeallday]

I feel from my own personal experience in both games is that while CK2 has lots of depth, playing well and efficient means you avoid much of the depth. EU4 on the other hand has less depth, but good and efficient play comes from you embracing much more of the depth it does have.

 

[Susanna]

The main reasons i stopped playting CK2 are :
- your ruler randomly dying and your realm breaking appart afterwise
- the terrible lag after a few centuries, which is totally due to the indian subcontinent addition

For a short while, the EU4 style coalitions between muslisms and catholics against the player were a gamebreaking feature until they fixed it.

If you haven't played since the patch for Reaper's Due (last fall) - the game is noticeably faster. Even with India.