Why EU4 is better than CK3, which is better than Imperator

[Der Dutchman]

To be clear, this isn't a troll post. I like both games (Not Rome, we'll get to that). Despite the fact they look and sometimes act in similar ways, there's a single trend line that makes one game interesting and the other game(s)... not. And ironically, that thing is history.

Unless you start by playing a super power, the simple fact is in EU4 for most of the game you're balanced on a razor between upcoming historical events and potentially dangerous neighbors. In Europe the Burgundy crisis can unexpectedly swing the balance of power, the Iberian Wedding or even the formation of the PLC can pose a sudden change... heck once even I had a super-power Netherlands show up that I hadn't planned on. As always the League war will be looming. Meanwhile there's the ever present threat from an Ottoman invasion. Between that and managing your alliances, there's plenty to do and lots of changes that will happen. EU4 kind of falls apart ~1650 - 1700 imo. Even if you start as an OPM, by this time you're probably an unparalled rival, but there's still revolutionary governments ahead of you and other things to watch out for.

In CK3... I just feel like there's almost no historical context after the start. Things quickly spiral WAY out of control. While I haven't started as a minor duke or OPM style start, the majority of both my games were spent spamming as much war as fast as I could, ignoring any request from my allies (because there's apparently very little penalty to do so), etc. In my last play I rapidly formed Hispania... and by the time I completed doing so there were no nations to rival my power. In fact, there hadn't been anyone to rival my power for ages before that. The only nation even vaguely close in that game was Seljuk, but they are so far away it was never really an issue. There's no event coming to disrupt the flow.

One thing I really love about EU4 was the quasi-historic national bonuses. You can make a spain that doesn't colonize of course, but it gives a nation a little direction. In CK3 I don't see any way forward other than "expand rapidly exactly the same way you did last time."

In short, EU4 feels like many nations around you are dangerous for a long time, as you leapfrog from a small nation to a large one, no matter where you start (Unless you start as the Ottomans or France or something). CK3 quickly feels like nobody around you is dangerous and those that are dangerous are far away. EU4 gives each nation a somewhat unique feel, in CK3 other than religion (Which is somewhat obtuse) and Feudal vs Tribal, every nation feels the same. The internal politics are ... lets face it, not hard to deal with. Once you understand how succession works, the rest is easy. I've basically never had a revolt of any strength or a threat to my power. It just feels so bland.

And Imperator Rome? It has the same problem in CK3 but way worse. Here your options are to start near a super-power and almost certainly die at random or start a little bit away from them and just expand until they implode (and they will implode). There's never any real threat or interesting war to fight and there's even fewer historic events to mix things up. It's just a game of map painting with no soul.

In short, my problem thus far with CK3 is simply that there's not a lot of interesting stuff going on after the start date and little reason to curb expansion or even deal with internal politics much. The cornerstones of the game feel weak, though it is admittedly much better than Imperator. Meanwhile I can't play EU4 because after over a thousand hours there's simply not much unique left to do.

So, I ask anyone out there: Is there an interesting nation to play that I missed? Something that keeps you on your toes, threading a needle between the politics of keeping your nation happy, expanding, and doing both without incurring the wrath of a more powerful neighbor- ideally with an even more powerful neighbor just beyond that one looming over you? Because THAT is the experience I want, but sadly have not yet found.

[FuscusNight]

EU4 is honestly boring and this is coming from someone who got into GSGs due to EU4 being my first.

All you can do in EU4 when you boil it down is war and the warring is boring as sin, there's no political swaying or intrigue mechanics for you to use to you to gain land or influence without having to start a war over it, there's next to no interesting dynamic things that can happen and the dumb rivalry system just forces nations to fight each other for no reasons such as being forced to rival an ally just cause there's no other around you can rival.

EU4 is also the highest RNG dependent game where you have next to no influence on the RNG, because there's no gameplay elements you yourself can influence to change the % of the RNG while in CK you can, you can keep marrying wives with good traits to make sure your rulers always have good or at least decent stats, you can build and teach your characters specific things so they're better at certain tasks something which in EU4 is a mere roll of the dice for a ruler that unlocks every couple of years and is outside your influence and you can get a kingdom's throne or empire under your dynasty by doing well placed marriages (and sometimes well placed assinations) and not just waiting and hoping for RNG.

Playing small nations or vassals in EU4 requires usually restarting an ungodly amount of times until the right people rival each other and are willing to ally you to help you, something that's rarely the issue in CK as even being under someone is enjoyable.

In CK there's more ways to enjoy the game outside of just blobbing or clicking a damn development button for 10 hours for a tall playthrough.

The fact there is only war in EU4 and next to no interesting mechanics to play around with during peace time wouldn't bother me if the war part was enjoyable, for an example HoI4 is rather simplistic when it comes to periods outside of war, all it is about is war but it does the war part well and war is fun but in EU4 it's not and the same goes for CK too butCK has additional elements where war is not the be all and end all and can be enjoyed in different ways.
All the war aspect boilts down to is moving a stack of units around a map and rolling the dice and that's it, oh sure there's technology and strategies of camping mountains terrain or river crossing or picking the right combination of things for some meta build but it doesn't really make it all that much interesting what so ever or fun.

I started with EU4, loved it until i finally decided to jump into CK2 and found out how lacking EU4 is and ever since iv'e had a hard time returning to EU4 really for any extended time due to this, when they make a sequel finally to EU4 they really need to make either the war parts intense and fun by completely revamping the war aspect gameplay or add more enjoyable ways of playing outside of just war, ways to gain influence that's not just tied to fighting, make actual mechanics that are fun to learn and do and not dull.

One thing that EU4 does right is the historical aspects, it actually is able to somewhat hold the course of history of things to the end unless a player does something insane but at the same time it does it so by artifically buffing nations with the lucky nations mechanics and rail roading nations heavily with the new linear mission stuff they implemented.

[Athmet]

Messaggio originale di EA Latium:

Messaggio originale di GoldenTalon:

Yeah agree with you on EUIV. I stopped playing around Rights of Man (2016?) and tried a new game recently. I was baffled by all the new mechanics and changes. The problem is they have to justify new DLC bu adding something new and now the game is so cluttered with overlapping mechanics you have to be a jet engine mechanic to get your head around it.

Weren't you complaining the other day that now Paradox games are for "casuals"?

GT is just looking for a map painters. All his whining on those forums have been aimed toward that goal for CK3... it is his right, you have people who like map painting and others who look for something different.

[Segovax]

I find EUIV boring. Once you work out the mechanics it's just as easy as CK2/CK3.

I don't have an issue with CK3 suddenly becoming 90% less historical after week 1 of gameplay, it was the same way in CK2. I can't speak to which game is "better" because I flat out don't like EUIV for various reasons, and I don't own Imperator.

[Hao Zhao]

The problem with EU4 is that it is a map painter. The ultimate goal of the game is to just pain the map your colour. Playing "tall" in EU4 is highly unsatisfying. It comes down to turning the speed up to 5 and waiting for monarch points to come in so you can trade them for development. The only thing I really miss from EU4 is exploraiton/colonization.

CK3 is redeemed by being character based and all of the little roleplaying stories you invent. CK3 is still very vanilla but its roleplaying aspects can only be improved by DLC as time goes on. When it comes down to it, managing a family is more fun than managing a flag.

[Turian14]

I think EU4 is boring as hell. I like CK3 for the roleplaying and alternate history. If I wanted historical accuracy I'd watch a documentary.

[Eddie Latium]

Messaggio originale di Athmet:

GT is just looking for a map painters. All his whining on those forums have been aimed toward that goal for CK3... it is his right, you have people who like map painting and others who look for something different.

I totally agree.

Messaggio originale di Hao Zhao:

The problem with EU4 is that it is a map painter. The ultimate goal of the game is to just pain the map your colour. Playing "tall" in EU4 is highly unsatisfying. It comes down to turning the speed up to 5 and waiting for monarch points to come in so you can trade them for development. The only thing I really miss from EU4 is exploraiton/colonization.

CK3 is redeemed by being character based and all of the little roleplaying stories you invent. CK3 is still very vanilla but its roleplaying aspects can only be improved by DLC as time goes on. When it comes down to it, managing a family is more fun than managing a flag.

Not really, EU is mostly a war game, you can dominate through raw expansion, trade, colonies, or maybe a combination of these elements, but playing tall is definitely viable, some nations really excel at that like Prussia for example.

Anyway that's a major difference with CK indeed, it's very hard to compare them, at the end of the day they try to achieve different things.

[The Former]

Messaggio originale di Palaiologos:

Messaggio originale di Turian14:

I think EU4 is boring as hell. I like CK3 for the roleplaying and alternate history. If I wanted historical accuracy I'd watch a documentary.

If I wanted alt-history I would just read alt-historical fiction.

Yeah doesn't make sense does it?

Well no, but there's a difference. In a game, you directly impact what happens. If you're simply carrying things out to a foregone conclusion, it feels rather pointless. Whereas with alternate history, there's the difference between reading someone else's idea of how events went differently, and deciding for yourself.

[Turian14]

Messaggio originale di Palaiologos:

Messaggio originale di Turian14:

I think EU4 is boring as hell. I like CK3 for the roleplaying and alternate history. If I wanted historical accuracy I'd watch a documentary.

If I wanted alt-history I would just read alt-historical fiction.

Yeah doesn't make sense does it?

I have played EU4 for a decent amount of hours I just don't find it very compelling compared to the CK series its boring for me. Its great that you like it but it feels more like managing a spreadsheet than playing a game. CK2 and 3 feel alive EU4 feels like excel.

[Messsucher]

Messaggio originale di Kampfzwiebel:

Well in CK 3 it is at least possible to paint the map at all. (Right now)

In EU 4 it is basically impossible for players who have not at least played the game for 2000 hours. And most people do not play games for 2000 hours.

The only way to paint the map with a lot of luck is starting as the Osman empire. Back when EU 4 released it was defenetly not impossible for normal players.

But EU 4 is made in way to make sure you can not paint the map at all, because this is not the point of the game.

I tried some cheats out of fun to paint the map faster. Even with cheats it is nearly impossible. Because the game begins to throw doom stacks at you. But as i say. I think people who play EU 4 do not even want to paint the map.

Right now i like CK 3 more. And not even because it is easier to paint the map. To understand only trading in EU 4 you have to look 4 one hour Youtube Videos. To grasp the game even on some basic level you have to look up to 10 hours of Youtube material. A lot of people are bored to death when they have to invest so much time in a single game.

I have played a lot of flight simulators. And even them are easier to learn.

War Thunder is not a flight sim. Just saying.

[Dynamite]

I will say one more thing and banish from this thread forever:

EU4 has never surprised me, I always saw it coming. CK3 has surprised me every single time I've sat to play it so far. I might even argue that it's sometimes harder due to its unpredictability, which for me is most enjoyable.

[Messsucher]

Messaggio originale di Dynamite:

I will say one more thing and banish from this thread forever:

EU4 has never surprised me, I always saw it coming. CK3 has surprised me every single time I've sat to play it so far. I might even argue that it's sometimes harder due to its unpredictability, which for me is most enjoyable.

You must be talking about CK2 now. CK3 does not surprise you. It is like scripted with 95% assassinations and abductions.

[Athmet]

Messaggio originale di Messsucher:

Messaggio originale di Dynamite:

I will say one more thing and banish from this thread forever:

EU4 has never surprised me, I always saw it coming. CK3 has surprised me every single time I've sat to play it so far. I might even argue that it's sometimes harder due to its unpredictability, which for me is most enjoyable.

You must be talking about CK2 now. CK3 does not surprise you. It is like scripted with 95% assassinations and abductions.

I guess everyone's opinion is fair game ;)

[Saeko]

Messaggio originale di Athmet:

Messaggio originale di Messsucher:

You must be talking about CK2 now. CK3 does not surprise you. It is like scripted with 95% assassinations and abductions.

I guess everyone's opinion is fair game ;)

I agree with him actually, i try play as duc of porto, and every single game i start, leon launch attack on galice after a little, than castille attack galice and than the muslim guy in south attack galice and guess what after 8 start its alway that.... not realy random to me...

[Athmet]

Messaggio originale di Saeko:

Messaggio originale di Athmet:

I guess everyone's opinion is fair game ;)

I agree with him actually, i try play as duc of porto, and every single game i start, leon launch attack on galice after a little, than castille attack galice and than the muslim guy in south attack galice and guess what after 8 start its alway that.... not realy random to me...

Never said he was alone with his opinion. It is hardly possible nowdays to be really alone with one's opinion on internet.

[Saeko]

Messaggio originale di Athmet:

Messaggio originale di Saeko:

I agree with him actually, i try play as duc of porto, and every single game i start, leon launch attack on galice after a little, than castille attack galice and than the muslim guy in south attack galice and guess what after 8 start its alway that.... not realy random to me...

Never said he was alone with his opinion. It is hardly possible nowdays to be really alone with one's opinion on internet.

Do i have said otherwise ? We can each other have different opinion, just saying, the game look less random than ck2 now.