You can build up areas in EU4 (especially if you have DLC to expand development), but the options are all less than what you have in CK2.ĬK2 has better land combat, EU4 better naval. I have a four duchy Brittany in ck2 that can challenge France, England, and many of the other larger nations. Late game EU4 features a fuckton of rebelling and fighting, but late game CK2 is no more bloodthirsty than midgame to me.Ĭk2 is better if you want to develop within your borders rather than expand them. The people of ck2, even if they're just a basic portrait and a blob of stats and modifiers, hold your attention better than a name and three numbers.Įu4 is better if you dont want to fight things: people talk about painting the map in EU4, but dominating trade or politics or colonizing the world are all options here, where as CK2 is limited primarily to bloodline manipulation.Ĭonversely, EU4 leads to more fighting. I've clocked 1300+ in CK2, and about 50 in EU4 (but several hundred in eu3)Ĭk2 is better, imo, if you're interested in being invested in your nation I find it easier to care more about my feudal holdings than my colonial empire.
0 kommentar(er)
