What exactly is it that sets it apart from CK2? From all the videos I've seen, they are two very similar franchises. I am only just starting CK2 up and I'm wondering if maybe I should hold off on it and just go ahead and play EU4 instead. Feel free to elaborate on your response because I am very interested in this type of game.

Well probably the biggest difference would be that CK2 is set during the Middle Ages, and EU4 is mostly set in the Renaissance. The way society, politics, religion, warfare and a number of other things were drastically different in those two time periods and it's reflected in the games.

That's cool. So have they implemented new mechanics and systems? Or is it just the same stuff but in a different setting with different strategies to go with the different era? Would you recommend one over the other, or should I just play both? I don't want CK2 to ruin EU4 for me by being too similar, but I'm not even sure if they are that similar.

New mechanics, sure, but it's more of just a focus thing. They don't have the intricate dynasty system CK2 has, because that stuff was less important in the EU4 timeframe. Hell, Victoria 2 (1836-... 1921?) has a super crazy economy and population system, because those things were important during that time.

They're really not that similar. CK2 is honestly pretty close to a role playing game where EU4 is more of a regular strategy game.

Hell, they've released a converter so you can take a kingdom you start in 867 or 1066 and go all the way to 1821. They're similar enough for that to work, but different in the mechanics.

Awesome. I can't wait to lost myself in these games. The more I play of CK2 the more I fall in love with Paradox. I had no idea about the converter so thank you for the information!

Gah, the game uses the same map. Lazy game development.

@breadfan: Aside from Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, the Pacific islands, yeah, they really dropped the ball by doing absolutely no work at all.