From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
I have so much wanted to love CK* and EU* (see the first line of my sig), but it never worked out.
CK2? I'm just not into human interrelationships, so fussing with arranging marriages, micro managing my court, and so on -- it all rather bores me. I also can't (or don't want to) assume "bad guy" character and bring myself to execute, poison, blind, etc. CK2 falls short on the "realism" front, as in stunted, simplified, overly abstracted combat, economics, and other aspects of the Medieval world (weather is not modeled, for instance). Then there's the Political Correctness thing, not to mention the silliness (like the recent idiotic Aztec Invasion DLC). CK2 -- a major disappointment.
EU3? Ironically, there is too little game mechanic devoted to human interrelationships, i.e., dynastic considerations are effectively absent. I fire up a game of EU3, then ... what do I do? Strangely (odd as it may seem to many of you), I feel a lack of motivation. Ruling a state, empire building is not My Thing (much less painting the map blue or doing a World Conquest). Necessarily so (due to the game's vast scope and time span), EU* is a heap of abstractedly abstracted abstractions (especially the economic model). Too many in-your-face numbers -- like mini-max gaming a spreadsheet. For me, EU* is mechanistic, dry, it lacks soul. As a plausible and immersive recreation of European and world history, it fails to convince. IMO.
Both games just never clicked for me. I tried, I very much tried. And I failed. My bad.
Bottom line: I'm not a strategy gamer; I'm a war gamer. I "just" want to maneuver and fight!
< Message edited by berto -- 1/25/2013 11:47:55 PM >