Why do you prever Europa Universalis 4 over Crusader Kings 2?
- Thread starter Typ87
- Start date
-
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.
EU4 is like a "PDX-paint" - you can only paint the map in your color. In CK2 or V2 you can have very interesting game and don't do any one war. In EU4 peacetime is "boring-time" - look at New World Nations. First decades is modernization and conquest what you can. Next is sleeping time 100 or 150 years (waiting to colonize and tech-up) and in ende you can do anything interesting (war with whites ofc).
EU4 is too much controllable; too much yes/no. You have easy way to control on any aspect of country and any troubles are only your fault.
EU4 is too much controllable; too much yes/no. You have easy way to control on any aspect of country and any troubles are only your fault.
I was really immersed in CK2 years ago..played it at release and before EU IV. I actually like the timeframe better myself. I would not say so much I prefer EUIV over CK2, it's just once EUIV came out it just took over. I think CK has more intricate gameplay in many respects, probably even deeper now, but haven't played since the last few DLCs. The one issue with CK is I think the combat/army management could be better. Maybe it has improved, but EUIV is more straightforward for sure. Managing armies and generals is a pita, and it seems much harder to wipe out enemies, often having to chase them all over the place since they can simply run anywhere...but maybe that is just me.
The dynastic stuff is really cool though. I could spend hours just spreading my seed.
Actually, I really plan to get back into CK again at some point.
The dynastic stuff is really cool though. I could spend hours just spreading my seed.
Actually, I really plan to get back into CK again at some point.
EU4 is when I feel like bringing out the big painting brush. CK2 when I want to do more roleplaying and just see what happens. Both are great games, but I'm more inclined towards painting so EU4 get more of my playing time.
I played CK 2 for a long time. I even played its pirate version hehe... sorry Paradox. Also CK 1... there was sooo much hype around CK 2 release. I am still waiting for a new Victoria game tho.
I love CK2, but it definetely has some things I really deslike.
Like... that broken tutorial! I know the game interface keeps changing with every new expansion but come on, this issue is so old, its a really sloppy work. EU4 has tons of dlcs and so far the tutorial is working out...
Like when you start with an old ruler and the game ends in less than 5 years.
When you play a merchant with business focus and always get stressed and die.
When you get cuckholded over and over again.
When your ruler sends the spy to ... what was that? Uncover corruption? Then he sudenly hates you guts because apparently you are a pederast?
Gavelkind and how you are stuck to it unless you risk Elective or Seniority (I once died and first thing I saw was this gay ruler, the oldest dinasty member, with seduction focus trying to seduce a man? And he had many gay lovers!). Haha... only in CK2!
One of the most boring things about CK2 is the waiting... you choose to start as a low count and ... fabricate for hours and hours... sometimes you stare at the screen for way too long. I dont like speeding up the game but, unless you do that it feels a bit... well.
The courtiers still dont get married on their own..Being a perfectionist and choosing the best matches for them, trying to bring the best tutors to your court every few years... quite a chore.
I dont know much about EU4. I played EU3 a bit, now I bought the collection since its on sale (finally!). Didnt expect I had to buy some dlcs besides the collection pack to have every thing (the collection is quite expensive already but having to buy 4 more dlc to have everything?!? Paradox come on...).
Europa Universalis 4... well, its beautiful! The butons the tabs, the map, the music, the feeling... it feels really really polished! Its really cute!
In CK2 you have some songs being played over and over again... theres a song that feels like an endless loop when it repeats the same part some 6 times omg! It feels... heavy. The music is intense, loud, you play ERE and it feels like you are at wat all the time!
You click at some tabs and you hear the noise of people whispering, in an endless loop... makes me want to close the tab asap so I can end the noise! Maybe complaining about this is a bit too much, am I being a douche now hehe? I played this game too much...
But EU4 music feels relaxing, gives another atmosphere... another feeling. Yet, the starting song, that viking metal or whatever, I hate that.
It feels a bit intimidating too... deep and complex with so much information and butons and options. Looks even more complex than HoI4 (if you dont count the whole unity composition thing). It shall be a pleasure to tame this new horse into submission!
Sadly I cant give much feedback on deeper ingame mechanics since I am still a noob at EU4. Hopefully I wont have to stare at a changeless screen for too long.
To be honest, with this music, this art and polishment, I wouldnt mind that too much
Last but not least, please forgive my many english misspellings.
I love CK2, but it definetely has some things I really deslike.
Like... that broken tutorial! I know the game interface keeps changing with every new expansion but come on, this issue is so old, its a really sloppy work. EU4 has tons of dlcs and so far the tutorial is working out...
Like when you start with an old ruler and the game ends in less than 5 years.
When you play a merchant with business focus and always get stressed and die.
When you get cuckholded over and over again.
When your ruler sends the spy to ... what was that? Uncover corruption? Then he sudenly hates you guts because apparently you are a pederast?
Gavelkind and how you are stuck to it unless you risk Elective or Seniority (I once died and first thing I saw was this gay ruler, the oldest dinasty member, with seduction focus trying to seduce a man? And he had many gay lovers!). Haha... only in CK2!
One of the most boring things about CK2 is the waiting... you choose to start as a low count and ... fabricate for hours and hours... sometimes you stare at the screen for way too long. I dont like speeding up the game but, unless you do that it feels a bit... well.
The courtiers still dont get married on their own..Being a perfectionist and choosing the best matches for them, trying to bring the best tutors to your court every few years... quite a chore.
I dont know much about EU4. I played EU3 a bit, now I bought the collection since its on sale (finally!). Didnt expect I had to buy some dlcs besides the collection pack to have every thing (the collection is quite expensive already but having to buy 4 more dlc to have everything?!? Paradox come on...).
Europa Universalis 4... well, its beautiful! The butons the tabs, the map, the music, the feeling... it feels really really polished! Its really cute!
In CK2 you have some songs being played over and over again... theres a song that feels like an endless loop when it repeats the same part some 6 times omg! It feels... heavy. The music is intense, loud, you play ERE and it feels like you are at wat all the time!
You click at some tabs and you hear the noise of people whispering, in an endless loop... makes me want to close the tab asap so I can end the noise! Maybe complaining about this is a bit too much, am I being a douche now hehe? I played this game too much...
But EU4 music feels relaxing, gives another atmosphere... another feeling. Yet, the starting song, that viking metal or whatever, I hate that.
It feels a bit intimidating too... deep and complex with so much information and butons and options. Looks even more complex than HoI4 (if you dont count the whole unity composition thing). It shall be a pleasure to tame this new horse into submission!
Sadly I cant give much feedback on deeper ingame mechanics since I am still a noob at EU4. Hopefully I wont have to stare at a changeless screen for too long.
To be honest, with this music, this art and polishment, I wouldnt mind that too much
Last but not least, please forgive my many english misspellings.
Last edited:
I'm guessing you have the Guns, Drums, and Steel music pack? That replaces several songs (including the main theme) with some more metal versions. You can disable the DLC if you prefer the original main theme.
Yes... just had the unfortunate experience of listening to this endless stream of metal songs. Sabaton, then another sabaton, and another sabaton.
Guess I will have to disable 3 dlcs to keep the game pleasant and climatic, in my subjective perspective, if one cant be redundant enough heh!
Thanks!
Why would you buy the Sabaton music packs if you hate metal?
Personally I love Guns Drums and Steel and the Sabaton stuff. Really puts me in the mood to smash my enemies to a pulp.
Personally I love Guns Drums and Steel and the Sabaton stuff. Really puts me in the mood to smash my enemies to a pulp.
Because for me, CK2 is too much information fluff without much actual essense.Yet it is perfect for roleplaying exactly for this reason/
There are hundreds of characters - yet they are all the same, save different stats. Character with 0 in military winning a tournament isn't all that rare too.
There are thousands of events - yet they are only interesting the first time you see them, which passes pretty fast
There are tons of stats and rules - yet i would only ever use a few of them to actually play the game.
The game's defining features like inheritance and de-jure claims are pointless once you know how easy it is to bypass them.
You think that the game has much to do, yet in the end, it is still the good ol' map painting, as you soon end up with all the building upgraded, all the trade depots built, all the provinces in your empire secured, vassals pacified and happy for now, inheritance secured as well, and the only thing that is left is fighting. The same as EU4. Yet the warfare in EU4 is much more detailed, much more interesting, with every stat and rule you get is useful in particular cases. With the combat AI being much better as well. The only CK2 thing i like more than EU4 is its attrition system. It is high enough to make an impact.
CK2 is a great game too for which i have every dlc - i just would not choose it when i want to play a strategy game. And i want to play a strategy game most of the time.
tl;dr both game end up being about the map painting, and eu4 does the map painting better
There are hundreds of characters - yet they are all the same, save different stats. Character with 0 in military winning a tournament isn't all that rare too.
There are thousands of events - yet they are only interesting the first time you see them, which passes pretty fast
There are tons of stats and rules - yet i would only ever use a few of them to actually play the game.
The game's defining features like inheritance and de-jure claims are pointless once you know how easy it is to bypass them.
You think that the game has much to do, yet in the end, it is still the good ol' map painting, as you soon end up with all the building upgraded, all the trade depots built, all the provinces in your empire secured, vassals pacified and happy for now, inheritance secured as well, and the only thing that is left is fighting. The same as EU4. Yet the warfare in EU4 is much more detailed, much more interesting, with every stat and rule you get is useful in particular cases. With the combat AI being much better as well. The only CK2 thing i like more than EU4 is its attrition system. It is high enough to make an impact.
CK2 is a great game too for which i have every dlc - i just would not choose it when i want to play a strategy game. And i want to play a strategy game most of the time.
tl;dr both game end up being about the map painting, and eu4 does the map painting better
EU4 has more replayability and control.
The simple fact is a lot of CK2 is the 'characters'; with a lot of their traits and such being beyond your control; or at best an RNG choice from a rather limited pool of events. Nomatter what country you play.
There is a difference to some degree based on other religions; but that's really about it.
Compare EU4. Most countries play rather differently due to countries having different idea sets; giving them different strengths and weaknesses. You can change how your country functions based on the Idea groups and policies you take.
An example is France. You could totally play France as a 'peacekeeper' using it's powerful starting position and status as a Great Power to intervene in wars, keeping others weak but not actively expansing yourself. Or you could play a France who attempts to crush the HRE. Or go more naval and be a real contestant in the Colonial game; threatening GB and Spain. Or you could go full-on Imperialist. Or even go Habsurg style and go after thrones. Do you Reform; or stay Catholic?
Finally... EU4 simply has more starting positions; upping it's replayability over CK2 further.
The simple fact is a lot of CK2 is the 'characters'; with a lot of their traits and such being beyond your control; or at best an RNG choice from a rather limited pool of events. Nomatter what country you play.
There is a difference to some degree based on other religions; but that's really about it.
Compare EU4. Most countries play rather differently due to countries having different idea sets; giving them different strengths and weaknesses. You can change how your country functions based on the Idea groups and policies you take.
An example is France. You could totally play France as a 'peacekeeper' using it's powerful starting position and status as a Great Power to intervene in wars, keeping others weak but not actively expansing yourself. Or you could play a France who attempts to crush the HRE. Or go more naval and be a real contestant in the Colonial game; threatening GB and Spain. Or you could go full-on Imperialist. Or even go Habsurg style and go after thrones. Do you Reform; or stay Catholic?
Finally... EU4 simply has more starting positions; upping it's replayability over CK2 further.
I wouldn't say I prefer EU4 over CK2 per se... but they both fulfill different needs for me. What I like about EU4 is the national identity that you create during the coarse of the game. If you play a grand campaign between CK2 and EU4, you'll notice that in CK2 your focus is on the personal interactions of your ruler, between other characters. When you take a game and import it into EU4, you take that same political landscape and watch it slowly transform with national policies and nation building. You see smaller kingdoms get absorbed into larger nations, you get to shape your nation with Ideas, and you can branch out from just a regional kingdom in Europe to a global super power.
For me, I always start CK2 as a single county Count, and see how large I can make my domain by the end of EU4 in 1821. It's like planting a seed and watching the tree grow.
I love both games but I like the EUIV setting (early-modern) more than CK2 (medieval).
I don't prefer one over the other, I love both quite a bit. I've played more CK2 though, but I have recently returned to EU4 and started relearning why I enjoy it so much. There are things I enjoy about both games and would love to see both games have in common. For one I really enjoy the character system in CK2 and would love it if EU4 had something similar. I really like EU4's trade system and I'd like to see it used in more PDX grand strategy games.
For me, and this has changed, I do not enjoy the present iteration of EU4 or what it became, this is dire for my future enjoyment of the series as it means I may be getting off this bus.
But let's look at, let's say Art of War era EU4 v. CK2
Less micro. Also, you can directly expand in EU4 instead of having to put dukes and so in charge of holdings and whatever else in CK2. I have only played CK2 a few times and both times I stopped after restoring Spain, but then I was only King of a small part of Spain with princes and such ruling the rest under me. Annoying to me to have to care about that stuff and all the other micro. That's why I prefer EU4, EU4 is just like Risk, or maybe more like Axis and Allies, but CK2 is way more micro.
EU4 of today has too much micro for my liking. I play old patches exclusively now, which is why I rarely comment in the forums anymore, and the balance has shifted back in to me playing more EU3 overall.
HOI 4 is about all the micro I can manage before I just say, ah, it's too spreadysheety. It's why I don't play EVE, and why I don't build stations all over the place in X3, and why I love sector and universal traders, fire and forget.
I prefer RPG aspect of CK2 but it's wayyyyyy too easy for my taste. That's why I never play CK2 without mods.
I love gameplay of CK2 but I just wish it offered some kind of challenge. Playing CK2 for over 1000 hours I've never once lost king title, not even once. (unless by consecutive random deaths of my playable characters in a short span) Council is powerless and vassals never overthrew me. There are good mechanics but they are all pointless when they don't offer a meaningful challenge. Vassals should be harder to control and player's powerbase should be challenged with more aggressiveness from the AI. At least going against a big blob in EU4 is difficult which makes it more fun despite my love for personal experience as in CK2.
EU3 used to feel the same and I could only play it with Magna Mundi. EU4 has become somewhat harder and challenging. so that's why I prefer EU4. If CK2 becomes more difficult or as difficult as EU4 I will prefer CK2.
I love gameplay of CK2 but I just wish it offered some kind of challenge. Playing CK2 for over 1000 hours I've never once lost king title, not even once. (unless by consecutive random deaths of my playable characters in a short span) Council is powerless and vassals never overthrew me. There are good mechanics but they are all pointless when they don't offer a meaningful challenge. Vassals should be harder to control and player's powerbase should be challenged with more aggressiveness from the AI. At least going against a big blob in EU4 is difficult which makes it more fun despite my love for personal experience as in CK2.
EU3 used to feel the same and I could only play it with Magna Mundi. EU4 has become somewhat harder and challenging. so that's why I prefer EU4. If CK2 becomes more difficult or as difficult as EU4 I will prefer CK2.
Unless you open such a thread in both forums, you'll get quite biased opinions OP ;P
CK2 Feels outdated, and unstable, and in general becomes boring way to fast. If/when CK3 comes, I will play it. but CK2 doesn't feel any fun, I tried comming back to it, but ended up abondoning it several times.