Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
Eu4 is too bloated now, with lots of useless stuff and too reliant on mission tree to keep the game moving forward. It is a fun game, but over a decade of development locked behind and broken into several DLCs did it no good.
I only played CK3 during the free weekend and I much prefer CK2. It is alright, especially if you are into roleplaying, but most nations and culture feel samey (a thing that might perhaps improve with the next DLC). The "the sims" aspect of CK3 is good enough (although some events gets quite repetitive quite fast, CK2 had more variety), but the historical/kingdom administration/army management part of that game feels extremely bland. At this point in time it is fairly questionable to call CK3 an improvement over CK2, while Kingdoms is already an improvement over Empires (still a great game) at release and with great potential in the future.
...just one man's opinion
I would say, that CK3 and EU4 have better production values (graphics and especially the UI).
CK3 is more of an RPG game, where your characted and his / her interactions with other characters are very important. In FoG:K it's much less emphasized - there are characteres and you can have vassals, but there is much less depth to it.
FoG:K has better economy - there are hundreds of buildings and tens of resources, that are produced and traded around. Mastering that part of the game is not completely necessary (at least on lower difficulties), but can significantly improve your income.
FoG:K doesn't have mana. Authority may be slightly similar, but you have much more control over it, than in EU4.
I like battles more in FoG:K. You have a lot of different units. If you have FoG:M, you can export the battle and play it in that game. However, even with default battle system, it's more clear in FoG:K in my opinion. If I lose a battle, I pretty much always know why (was my army too small? did I bring wrong units? did I just roll badly?), while in CK or EU series it's sometimes cryptic.
In general: I would say, that CK3 has better RPG elements and both CK3 and EU4 have better production values, but I like strategy elements and mechanics in FoG:E and FoG:K more.
FoG Medieval and all its DLC are currently on sale. This is a great time to pick them up.
CK3 is very niche for me and has a very weak strategy layer (too easy), it's not even in the same league.
How so...? Don't get me wrong, tactics are sort of so-so but to say the CK3 strategy isn't better....
What size nation did you play as for Kingdoms?
Whether small/medium/large feel there is something to do in Ck3, that's how FoG: empires was too.
My experience so far as a small Ireland nation has been pretty dreadful...nearing the top #5 in legacy so it's not a doing bad thing....
To even just call a crusade is like a -2 authority hit has been a turn off, as has the authority paywalls in general with practically anything. I'm saying that as I'm in green tier/63ish authority.
this to me is more accurate, partiicularly if we are talking early versions of EU4... then again I put CK3 and CK2 thousand leagues ahead of EU4.
In terms of fun I'd say the CK games and FoG:Empires are well above EU4/FoG:Kingdoms.
The synergies with FoG: Empires trading was outstanding, I could have fun just min/max the economy and pops.
I have some similar thoughts to these comments, though overall I think all the games have something different to offer based on what you are looking for. I tend to like Kingdoms most, but EU IV has a similar fun factor. I will admit I havn't played EU in several months... I like CK2 and CK3 though, but for different player experience reasons.
The experience a player is looking for is critical here. How important is multiplayer to you? It's important to me, and the MP aspect is part of why I like Kingdoms most, because it is an asynchronous turn based wego system. So players don't have to be at the exact same place at the exact same time with an effective internet connection. Each player can do their turn based on their situation, and when all players are done a new turn immediately starts. It is near impossible for me to coordinate schedules between just 2 other friends (let alone more) who play since we all have jobs and families. So there are days where we could get 10 turns done in a day, but most of the time it is just 1 or 2...but it can still keep going as schedules allow. With direct connect games we haven't been able to play AT ALL in the last 3 weeks.
Single player I like Kingdoms because it allows me to use FOGM to play out interesting battles. But like above, I like the turns because I can quickly put down and pick up what I was doing without missing anything. Not to mention I get mental fatigue quicker when constantly spinning the plates of a real time system like the paradox titles.
I'm far from throughly familiar, but I'm playing Aragon, and I'm drowning in Authority.
For myself I don't think it's an "understanding" that is needed. for small nations. As I'm like #7 in legacy and nearing #5 and only a couple of points from top authority ranking.
It's more the unwillingness for self sabotage lol
I don't think I'd mind building tall if could participate in more wars/crusades more freely.
The game rules feel like they'd be better suited for a map of Imperator Rome size. and court style feels like we should be playing pike & shot / victorian era.
It's a question of what you want, what you prefer.
Personally, I'm a Field of Glory: Kingdoms player and I'm very happy with it – but I've always wanted to play the AGEOD games.
First of all it’s a very different game. It plays more like a board game, and feels closer to medieval total war one than any other medieval game.
Especially if you own FOG:medieval, as then you control armies in battle. Though this itself has some quirks to it where some units change or don’t appear in the battle.
The map in Ck3 is much better in terms of accuracy, and you get all the major historical characters. It’s a little thing but I find that Saxon Englands traits in Kingdoms feel more akin to Norman England. Especially the Anarchy one. Ck3 also has dynamic plagues, and counties/provinces. Kingdoms has a limited amount of vassals and duchies that can be made. Though I think it’s been fixed that these no longer are weird (on release you could get Milan in northern France for example).
Both have ok mechanics for peace time. Kingdoms has a lot of buildings and a fun trade mechanic, whilst ck3 now has lots of events you can host. Both have pretty poor war ai. Ck3 represents the role of women and people in the court better than kingdoms. Crusades are meh in both.
I find ck3 runs better fps wise, but it doesn’t bother me too much in this sort of game. Regional decisions don’t feel as flavourful as characters being given tasks in ck2/ck3.
Ck3 also has some fun government types now. Such as the new Byzantine one.
Ck3 has a lot of mods. Kingdoms has none I’m aware of. Some of these mods add things like trade to the game.
To give an example of why I personally prefer ck3 (though I like both games).
Using diplomacy, as I feel it’s the weakest part of this game. For example in my last game as the Zirids (I think, the dynasty that start with Tunis) I wanted to ally a neighbour, so to do so. I payed them money. That’s the main way you make friends. Eventually they like you enough from sending money or metals/manpower to form a treaty of some kind.
In my last game of ck3 as Brittany I wanted to ally England. So I arranged my son to marry the daughter of William the conqueror. To do so I gifted them regalia I had had made, and promised a grand wedding. Which I then got to plan. The game now even takes into account travel times across the map. It just felt more real, and grand. Closer to how I’ve read about alliances being formed in the history books. Plus when my son took the throne England had collapsed into civil war so he could war against the new king of England to try and put his wife on the throne. This has led to decades of wars between the two kingdoms, and all felt very realistic and fluid.
Ck3 is easier in some ways, but there’s not really an end. It’s a sandbox. Kingdoms is better as a strategy game with a way to win. So both are good in their own ways.
Didn’t plan to write this much, if you read all that I’m so sorry lmao.