Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tarran]

Some annoying things I found so far.

No notice that there are rebels sieging your provinces. I lost a bunch of provinces since I was busy managing other matters and some arsehole forced them over the border.

Aren't there message options? Surely there are some message options lying around somewhere in options.

A navy that is being repaired in a colony which when that colony is attacked and destroyed by natives will result in the whole fleet being destroyed. Very annoying. 

I think that was also in EU3, so nothing new there as far as I know.

Combat is still opaque and dice rolls are still way too important. The "pip" system needs to be reworked so it shows the various multipliers so you can get a clear indicate on which unit is better. Needs a military DLC ASAP. 

DLC? Why not just a free update?

[Chattox]

Downloading the demo as we type. I own and have played EU3, but it was before I really got my head around how Paradox games work. I'd go back to it and try it out, but I'm downloading the EU4 demo so I might aswell just wait for that. At the risk of sounding retarded, what are the main differences between CK2 and EU4?

[Rakonas]

Some annoying things I found so far.

No notice that there are rebels sieging your provinces. I lost a bunch of provinces since I was busy managing other matters and some arsehole forced them over the border.

Aren't there message options? Surely there are some message options lying around somewhere in options.

I got a few messages about rebels crossing the border into my country, but I think it may be spotty and only alert you part of the time.

Downloading the demo as we type. I own and have played EU3, but it was before I really got my head around how Paradox games work. I'd go back to it and try it out, but I'm downloading the EU4 demo so I might aswell just wait for that. At the risk of sounding retarded, what are the main differences between CK2 and EU4?

EU4 is about running a country. You're not concerned with characters very much, though your leader's skill, advisors, and generals are all important. It's more about securing your place in the sun as a european country or preventing europeans from wrecking your shit as a non-european.

[Descan]

Later date, tech is more important, no "upgrading" to a higher tier except in specific circumstances, HRE is more special, characters not as important, countries are pretty whole instead of made of groups of AIs clustered under one AI (or you), religion not as important, trade and colonization big deals, the whole world instead of a single region.

Other things but those are the major ones. (Read: the ones I could think of)

[Kaje]

I must admit I've only played the demo, but I haven't been terribly enamoured with this. For me, Crusader Kings should be their flagship series - it's in depth, it's fun, it's customisable (they really should have allowed you to customise your leaders in EU) whereas EU just seems a little more simplistic. There feels like far less to actually do.

[Tarran]

In CK2, it's all about managing characters, about choosing who gets to have power, who doesn't, and who you're trying to take power from. Your traits, your character's choices, etc. Managing your actual country is next to unimportant, and diplomacy is basically getting the right traits, getting the right events, having the right religion, and marrying the right people. Also gift spam. As for your country, there are next to no events for your provinces/country, and having a religious, different cultured province doesn't matter much. In addition, in my experience combat comes down to who has the larger singular stack and the better leader (though I won't deny that there might be some other strategy, I just haven't seen it much).

In EU, it's all about managing your country, while admittedly characters get the shaft hard. Colonization (which CK2 does not have), trade (which CK2 does have but in a drastically different way), ideas, stability and war exhaustion (which CK2 does not have), and more important diplomacy are some of the things EU has over CK2. In addition, the actual culture and religion of your provinces actually matter, as provinces of different culture and religion are going to be seriously angry with you. Combat, in my experience, also manages to be more complex than two or a few more armies engaging in a couple fights. Instead, you often have long, drawn out tactical wars where you have to manage attrition, reinforcements, terrain (terrain in EU is even more important than CK2), sieges, war exhaustion, manpower, and money, all while trying to outdo your enemy with multiple separate armies instead of a few large ones as there is now a limit in how many troops can fight at once in each battle.

[Dutchling]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Also people can only ever have one living child.

[Rakonas]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Also people can only ever have one living child.

Not true, actually. You have times where heirs die and are immediately replaced by another, generally younger.

[Dutchling]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Also people can only ever have one living child.

Not true, actually. You have times where heirs die and are immediately replaced by another, generally younger.

I always assumed that's their kid.

[Rakonas]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Also people can only ever have one living child.

Not true, actually. You have times where heirs die and are immediately replaced by another, generally younger.

I always assumed that's their kid.

Doesn't make a lot of sense when your first heir was 12 and the next one 8, though. Unless those inbred nobles have invented the gene for super fertility.

[Tarran]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Yes, that is a serious gripe I have with EU. But unlike CK2 it doesn't bring your empire crashing down as everyone revolts at once just because they don't like your traits and your last leader happened to die at the wrong time. Rather, it just makes your country crappier in more passive ways, where it crashing down is more due to it's situation rather than traits.

[Andrew425]

I don't think 36 year olds have kids who are 34...

Tarran sumed it up well. Its not about dynasties or characters its about the formation of a nation. Its about dealing with other nations where the only course of action might be conflict. 

It's a logistics game. Generally the bigger army wins as long as you have comparable technology.  Getting and paying for those armies is what you will be worried about.

[snelg]

Yeah, the system for rulers in EU3 was probably one of my least favourite parts of the game, especially when you were not in the latin tech group and had to westernize (and had to wait 150 years for a good enough monarch). And it kind of feels like that system was expanded and affecting even more parts of the game for EU4 with the monarch points. The only chance you get might be some pretender rebels, but rebels bring some problems as well.

That aside I like a lot of the new things for EU4 and can see myself sinking a bit of time into that one.

[Dutchling]

I like it more than the CK2 system though, where educating your heir yourself is basically pressing the 'I Win' button.

[Dutchling]

You can also cannot change your rulers. It's as if you play CK2 and a random AI will always educate your heir and you can do nothing about it.

Also people can only ever have one living child.

Not true, actually. You have times where heirs die and are immediately replaced by another, generally younger.

I always assumed that's their kid.

Doesn't make a lot of sense when your first heir was 12 and the next one 8, though. Unless those inbred nobles have invented the gene for super fertility.

Never has that happen to me. When my heir inherits he tends to have a kid, and when my own heir dies I can get an event giving me a new one. Now I think about it, I never had an heir being replaced by a 1+ year old new heir.

edit: oops, double post.