Now that the DLC has settled, what's the /vst/erdict?

>>2065968 (OP)
I think CK3 has advantages in some ways. 3D genetics is a big plus.

Character system and culture is hands down CK3, literally everything else is ck2.

>>2066173
>Character system and culture
Isn't that the entire point of the CK series?

>>2065968 (OP)
there are a few things ck3 did better but whenever i think i might want to play crusader kings again, i immediately think of 2

>>2065968 (OP)
Right now?
3, all way in.
People shit on it more due to habit than actual fault, but this is the only PDX game with consistent dev cycle and actual, realistic goals to pursuit. It's not perfect, but compared with 2, I fail to see any reason other than either nostalgia or Venice gameplay to pick 2 over
The big game-changers were:
>Actually solid and thought out release state
>Clear distinction between important and flavour DLCs, so you can pick and chose, rather than having to install them all anyway
>T&T reworking how travel and activities work
>RtP introducing adventurers
>AUH adding nomads proper
And what makes those DLC special is that they break the PDX habit of "DLCs are a spherical cowns floating in perfect vaccum, not interacting with each other". Instead, they consistently build from and with blocks previous DLCs introduced, rather than inventing new mini-games each time.
The only thing the game is missing for real is the monument system from CK2, but everything else is WAY better.

Said all that, I dislike the concept of adding Far East, it's just stupid on too many levels to even comprehend. They are unironically better off making a separate game for Asian markets than trying to crowbar that into CK3 gameplay loop. It has the potential to ruin the game completely, and not just due to performance hit, but time will tell how it plays out.

>>2066835
Oh, an one more thing:
CK3 would benefit from using I:R map, or at least the granularity of it.

>>2066835
>I fail to see any reason other than either nostalgia or Venice gameplay to pick 2 over
The fact that CK3's is completly dependant on the player, all the AI work in perfect harmony if the player is here in the sense that its AI exists only to fuck the player over.
It doesnt pick on the personality of its characters and doesnt make them story in their own, except for either being passive or fucking you over.
CK2 on the other hand is really great in that aspect, Im actually playing a comfy England playthrough as one of the Anglo lord against the Heathen army and there is so many moving parts with people both advancing themselves, putting their bishops as Pope in the College of Cardinals, Ireland and Scotland either ally against me or with me to fight and put their own claimants.
One of my vassals fucked me over and matrinally married his kids of my dynasty, divorced my relative and began to make proper heir for his duchy.
Norse vikings try to set their eyes on England until I with the help of the Karlings sponsored missionaries and they are now Balkanized warringeach other over frozen lands thus definitly weakening the viking age.
The muslims took Constantinople after Christendom betrayed the Byzantines with their crusades but they are struggling with Asturias who keeps getting alliances with all the powerful christians and hoards all the holy orders in their service to fight the ambitious Umayyads.
I peaked into the east and India is fractured but some Raj are getting powerful by either turning muslims and askig favors to China.

>>2067336
you PEEKED into the East, nigger, PEEKED.

>>2066835
>I dislike the concept of adding Far East
It'll be good for sales though, right? I think it's best to keep focused though. If they want to tap into sales they should make a separate China game, it'd be cool probably. But having both be specialized for the purpose is best.

Very different games.
I prefer Ck3.

>>2065968 (OP)
I think 3 has overtaken it by now but I just hate still having to make tradeoffs, it's been in post-release development for half a decade why can't it simply have all the good parts of 2 and more by now? Instead it's this pick and choose shit while bringing in whole new problems.

>>2066340
No sir thats the sim(ps)

>>2065968 (OP)
I'd say it's a sidegrade, they both lack some thing the other has. I kind of got over CK2, played it to death as a teen and even later, so I am just maybe too burned out for 3 right now.

>>2065968 (OP)
I'll never understand why they're so hesitant to bulk reintroduce CK2 features. It's reached a critical point where I can barely play either game anymore since I just end up wishing it features from the other.

Infinitely better than ck3

>>2071370
You're not qualified for that statemnent.

>>2071430
You only need 2 hours to know if a game is good or not

>>2071436
>convienently cut out the year so it doesn't show he played the unpatched game at launch
>compares a game with 20 years of DLC to a game on release

>>2071442
The game at launch was probably better than it is currently, a bloated hodge podge of disconnected systems that don't work together at all and modifier spam. Cope, ck3 will never be good

>>2071460
>The game at launch was probably better
wat
>a bloated hodge podge of disconnected systems
Elaborate.
>modifier spam
Just like Ck2 then?
>ck3 will never be good
See >>2071430
It already surpassed Ck2.

>>2071340
What features in CK2 are missing in 3 and viceversa? I've got this many hours in 2 but I never fully grasped it, just dicked around. I want to get into 3 proper and I'm curious about these features

>>2065968 (OP)
I like nomads in 3
Character look good
Rest is kinda meh
Performance getting worse with each new dlc kinda sucks

>>2071370
you only have 14 hours on CK3, get to 500 then make a comparison. until then your opinion is discarded

I'll give CK3 a try when you can disable 3D characters and debloat the map, Paradox can't optimize their games so I don't know why they want to add half of Asia as well. Leave that shit for EU, CK should just focus on medieval Europe and the immediate crusade-related Middle East.

>>2071912
Dude I'm not saying you should get a 5090, but in 2025 you should at least have an RTX 3060 12GB.

>>2071942
It's first and foremost an engine limitation, Clausewitz slows down noticeably if you have too much shit going on. They already had to do hack fixes in CK2 like regularly culling characters in the world and reduce the interval for MTTH event checks because it affected performance too much.

>>2071715
This. If you don't smell shit for half a thousand hours, you will never know if it smells or not.

>>2071944
Yeah, well, I'm on a Ryzen 5 5600 and an RTX 3060 12GB version, and I don't have that problem.

Those specs aren't even insane btw. They're good for 1080p 60fps gaming, but they're not NASA tier bs

>>2065968 (OP)
The playing with toy soldiers aspect of CK is better in CK2.
The playing with dolls aspect pf CK is better in CK3
I'd say that is a win overall for CK3 since other paradox series like EU and HOI are better at the playing with toy soldier part than the CK series, while the playing with dolls part is unique to CK in paradox games and strategy games more broadly

>>2071912
Performance in CK3 has been leagues Victoria 3 or Stellaris.
It runs suprisingly well given it's scope.

>>2066835
>inventing new mini-games each time
it is exactly what ck3 dlc does

>>2067709
If they focus on a good game, sales will come. You definitely should not be focused on sales, unless you work for Paradox or have significant stock with them.

>>2071715
This is the most inane opinion I've seen
>force yourself to play trash for 500 hours before saying it's trash

>>2065968 (OP)
ck3 is better, the travel system alone shits all over ck2

>>2065968 (OP)
you cant do anything and UI sucks ass in ck2

>>2072766
Explain why CK2 is better, then.
>I can't...
Curious!

>>2066835
>>T&T reworking how travel and activities work
badly written event spam
>>RtP introducing adventurers
badly written event spam
>>AUH adding nomads proper
meh
>Actually solid and thought out release state
in the same way picrel is 'solid' and 'thought out'

>>2071430
I am, the game is dogshit

>>2071997
it's been getting worse and worse with each release, though. My R5 3600 used to blaze through time in this game. Now it slows down considerably after only a few hundred years, even less so if Byzantium gets big (i think the admin government is the biggest culprit for the recent lag)

>>2065968 (OP)
My nostalgia for CK2 is strong, but I can really see how clouded it is when I revisit it. CK3 fucks up on things, but god is it much better overall.

>>2066835
>Said all that, I dislike the concept of adding Far East, it's just stupid on too many levels to even comprehend
This
What exactly is the point?

>>2065968 (OP)
I can't get into either of them.
I just don't understand where the fun is supposed to be

they're both shit games, but ck2 had a core idea that could've been good if they had expanded on it in the sequel. ck3 failed to do that and just made an rpg disguised as a strategy game. teleporting armies, lol

>>2065968 (OP)
CK2 feels more like a strategy game but CK3 has some cool features. I suppose it depends on my mood.

>>2071430
>>2071370
>>2073600
>>2071488
Normalfaggots pls. There is always a bigger loser with more time wasted in stupid shit. Using it to justify the legitimacy of an opinion is dumb. There is a lot of cool stuff in CK3, but they left a lot of cool things in CK2 in the dust, but based on the latest from Paradox, they're at least looking to add to/review the things they chose not to improve/add on. Yes, it sucks if you're into being a pathetic paypig. Be real tho, only the biggest fucking losers played vanilla CK2, modders have always been the people dragging this bitch by the hair to playability.

Give it another 5 years, let modders clean up after Paracuck oopsies and eventually we'll all be bitching about CK4.

>>2074053
Idiot pls.
Putting 15 hours in at the very launch, before all the patches and DLC dropped does not make you qualified to talk about the game years later.

>>2074053
>text text text
>zero substance

Name these things that are lacking. Be specific.

You people are all retarded. Let me end the discussion with the following TRUTH: CK2 has soul, ck3 is SOULLESS.

/thread

>>2065968 (OP)
I play more Vic 3 than CK3 if that means anything to you OP. CK3 just feels made for an entirely different audience.

>>2074168
you didnt play either

>>2066835
>they break the PDX habit of "DLCs are a spherical cowns floating in perfect vaccum, not interacting with each other".
Lmfao you cannot be serious. This is *the* most valid criticism of the game. Every DLC adds a new system, a new currency, that is completely disconnected rather than integrating base game mechanics into it. Then only point I'll give you is the T&T travel system being a huge step in the right direction away from abstraction, but it definitely has not been used to its full potential yet.

>>2074075
>Laws.
They're obviously intending to add some across the board based on the various laws Admin realms currently have, but fighting with your vassals/council is what kept the game interesting over multiple generations. As it is, its a prestige cost.
>Raising troops/war.
Civil wars and even external ones were dynamic. You had to balance/avoid keeping a vassal's troops raised forever and you could cycle through different vassals to maintain a positive opinion. During a civil war you had to group loyalists together while avoiding rebel armies, this also made every civil war different.
>Technology/buildings.
It wasn't great in 2 but it was fun spreading tech through your realm, and advancements didn't just apply to a culture group as a whole. The way certain tech was required for better laws was also a cool way to tie things together. Being able to pick where you spent your points was great too, I know you can do something similar in 3 but its legit just a pick and wait game, in 2 you could save up and burn points on the next tier of legalism or majesty for direct bonuses like an unlocked law or extra opinion.

Buildings in 2 were a silly mini-game and I understand why they simplified it but at the same time, let me build more than X-number of buildings until I increase development. In 2 I felt like I was improving my realm with each building, in 3 its more like waiting for development to grow so I can build something. At the same time, increasing prosperity and spawning a new barony title in 2 allowed me to make anywhere on the map my golden paradise. This is absent from 3, banonies are predestined in number. You want to make the Isle of Man the Constantinople of Britain? Sorry bud, you've only got two provinces/baronies.

There is a lot a like in 3 as well, dont get me wrong but - Also, de jure drift. Holy fucking shit. Is it so hard to understand that I want to be King of multiple titles without my main title subsuming my secondaries? FIX PLS

>>2074254
I appreciate the explanation but that's some tiny shit.
>so what, it doesn't matter?
It does but I can find equally tiny shit that's better in 3 than in 2.

>>2074218
Can't you read? I said /thread

>>2074265
You didn't play either of the games you're talking about

>>2074270
I SAID /THREAD

>>2074308
kek.

>>2074253
>step in the right direction away from abstraction
I haven't played CK3 in ages, did T&T actually make all characters have specific map locations at all times or is it a paradoxian halfmeasure?
BTW I miss armies having 3 generals for the wings and center. I think the system could have worked great if expanded upon, like you could train up commanders by giving them a flank instead of the whole army. If they reduced the amount of little shitty armies running around they could even add a tiny minigame to let you have some control over the battles, like you can designate each wing to hold/advance/retreat/charge/run.

>>2074308
nigga you didnt play
opinion not valid n shit

>>2074523

>>2065968 (OP)
Just them making warfare boring as hell and removing any tactics from it by making every nation spawn boats out of their ass and making it so easy to gather your levies with one click in one province made ck3 totally boring and unenjoyable for me.
Instead of making warfare more indepth they did the opposite, they did the same shit with the transition from ck1 to ck2 by making the warfare easier.
Just boring.

>>2074520
ck1 did warfare much better, with the whole nobility being there and leading their own contingents with you leading the army as a whole and not your armies being led by nameless nobodies, and also your vassals vassals were in the army too.
It had an actual feel as to how feudalism actually worked.

>>2074814
play imperator bruv, you'll love it