Thread 2214879

Even in Nov of 2025.

>>2214879 (OP)
Ck2 still has quite a few mechanics that Ck3 lacks. For instance trade and trade routes, custom great works, societies, issue of a hostile council, and investiture and pope election mechanics. Also ck3 suffers the weakness of having too many hugely important binary things: progress happens over the span of one or two changes. You research one new tech and suddenly can field twice as many men at arms (rather than incrementally gaining maybe 10% greater retinue capacity) or you have one genius child and can quite easily guarantee that every future heir will be a genius because the game pretends that return to mean simply isn't a thing and genius parents will always have genius kids.

Most of all I'd say the flaw in ck3 is that it tries to give the player an easy way to control everything at all points of the game, which is not only anachronistic but makes the game feel very arcady. Sure it's bad game design to make something utterly game ruining over which the player lacks control, but it's also very unsatisfying when it takes maybe 50 years of gameplay to establish a state where you have absolute control over culture, religion, inheritance, and other things that were deeply entrenched in medieval society even though they often conflicted with the desires of rulers. Also character traits being static and soft-locked to only 3 adds to the arcady feeling and makes roleplay feel shallow: you could always roleplay a tyrant by killing/torturing people, but in ck2 you could see actually see your character change for the better (or worse) as his life progresses. Ck3 is superior in a few ways (in particular: lifestyles, hooks, secrets) and it also generally has a lot more content both in terms of baseline and area-unique events/mechanics, but it's not a pure upgrade.

>>2214994
Quite an accurate assessment. I would just underscore that ck 3 lacks any real long term strategy because it’s trivial to achieve your goals within one at most two characters usually. The player gets so overpowered so fast that you really need to limit yourself from using ordinary gameplay to keep any challenge. Whereas ck 2 could be trivial with cheese but there was no natural inclination to do so and strategy spanning generations feels more natural

>>2214879 (OP)
1) Contriarianism
2) CK2 was quite literally baby's first PDX game for... a lot of people. They still obsess over it, even if they don't actually play it anymore
3) CK3 post-release dev cycle is abysmal and it burned long time ago through genuine goodwill the premiere gained, so people are pissed at that

>>2214994
>societies
I don't miss them, easily the most disruptive part of the game that existed for the sake of peddling a new DLC - literally pay money to make your game worse in every possible regard.
>rest of the post
Yes, because we all remember how historically accurate CK2 was, with 2/3 of the content being made for the sake of memes. The all-powerful satanic cults, anyone? But I guess that didn't happen, neither did any of the increasingly supernatural and unrealistic or anachronistic elements of the game past first five DLCs. Nu-uh.
Fags like you are always the worst, in complete denial about actual fucking content of the game you are championing and at the same time clinging to some minutea bullshit of the next parts. I think only Fallout fandom is more delusional in terms of claiming how original was "all serious, no wacky stuff" and how 2 "ruined everything forever with jokes".

you see, i don't have to pay for ck2

>>2215779
CK2 still felt like it was taking itself seriously in-universe, references and all. Shit like LE HORSE POPE was the result of an exploit.
CK3 has no idea what it wants to be. The stupid poses of the characters in events, the much-maligned fart events, et al.
I do like CK3, but whichever part of Paradox is developing it is trying hard to make me not like it.

>>2214879 (OP)
Causes what?

>>2216107
You see, you don't have to pay for any games

I think the closest to legally owning a PDX game I was when Vicky 1 was added to the daily newspaper I read back in 2009. I still have no idea why they did it.

>>2216150
>CK2 still felt like it was taking itself seriously in-universe
No, not really
>Shit like LE HORSE POPE was the result of an exploit.
As opposed to non-exploit based bullshit that comes from events regarding seduction, secret societies, foreign religions, witchcraft, real Satan... shall I continue?
>CK3 has no idea what it wants to be
It very clearly has that idea: a paper doll simulator about running a dynasty. Something that CK2 can't even do, despite supposedly being the same game
>The stupid poses of the characters in events,
And that affects...
>the much-maligned fart events
Which got cut out long time ago. Unlike all the shitty jokes in CK2, which are the REASON why this was even added to 3 in the first place

And I like the finale of your post. It's a step up from the standard "I have many friends who X", because you try to pretend you like it, while bitching about it the standard spiel of contrarian complains.
CK2 sucks balls. They made a decent game that then got hijacked by memes and youtubers and neither CK2 nor PDX truly recovered from that. And the game was eventually fully catering to memes. By CK3 they tried that again, people told them to fuck off and they stopped right after that.
All I want from 3 is to have universal game mechanics, rather than regional packs, and it would be peachy. And it's still miles ahead of CK2, even if they still didn't implement city states and custom monuments (and fuck those pre-defined universities, this shit is just horrible) or reworking religious fervour to the one from 2.
And yet is is STILL better han 2.

>>2214994
I respectfully disagree,
>trade post
Only useful to chat with China and get their help, stuff, princess.
And if you mentions the Republics, you waste more time fighting your rivals (forget about the whole "nation over political parties") than doing "Capitalism Fuck Yeah!".

About societies, the only cool ones are the martial (pagan) ones. Forget about cool deep roleplay (establish Hermeticism or Luciferianism as your official religions) with cool events, quests, etc.

And the ones used to revive old cults never work because your brethren are useless retards.

>game being easy after 50 years
Just like CK2 once you become powerful enough, I have to say, this is even worst in CK2, at least in CK3 you can do a come back if you become landless and can prduce an eugenic progeny. In CK2 if you become landless is over or at some point, all your relatives become retards that kill nuke your dynasty and empire rather than ally with you or accept your help.
Also, CK3 can still be fixed, CK2 is dead for Paradox and modders can't do nothing to fix it.

>>2214994
>but in ck2 you could see actually see your character change for the better (or worse) as his life progresses.
Try to be a lawful-good tyrant and see want happens.
In CK3 you can be that, and also do the opposite and being a chaotic-evil tyrant or troller.

>state where you have absolute control over culture, religion, inheritance, and other things that were deeply entrenched in medieval society even though they often conflicted with the desires of rulers.
The whole point of a "sandbox" is to find your way to do what you want, if devs cheat and make it impossible, then they lied and scammed you, because it's not a sandbox.

>>2215779
>supernatural
OP here, I always had that ON and the most supernatursl thing that happened in all the hours I played it was being a werewolf, nothing more nor cooler.

>>2216191
>Only useful to chat with China and get their help, stuff, princess. And if you mentions the Republics, you waste more time fighting your rivals (forget about the whole "nation over political parties") than doing "Capitalism Fuck Yeah!".
You could make a shitton of money if you played it right, and it added a hugely important mechanical reason to control specific territories, like the holy land.
>>game being easy after 50 years
My point isn't that Ck3 is easier per se, but rather that you can alter the world according to your wishes much faster than in Ck2. It's way too easy to secure succession with zero drawbacks (just disinherit lmao), make some ridiculously gamey and overpowered religion/culture, etc. Probably Ck3 is better for having those mechanics available, but they're far too accessible and should come with much more severe drawbacks. And since the game is very easy you just end up choosing between artificially limiting yourself or getting absurdly overpowered characters and cassus bellis within 100 years of game start.

>>2216220
>Try to be a lawful-good tyrant and see want happens.
This is just a contradiction in terms.
>The whole point of a "sandbox" is to find your way to do what you want
Sure, but that way shouldn't necessarily be so easy. If you wanted to, e.g., make a heresy the dominant European religion then you should need extremely careful planning and should face severe opposition for a very long time even if you're already the most powerful person in Europe. But in Ck3 you just click a button to convert/create new faith and then most of your vassals will flip and within a few years most of your territory will be converted.

Anyways, I think ck3 is a fine game…it just could be an absolutely amazing game if major decisions actually had severe long term consequences. Sandbox elements and strategy elements are mutually exclusive, and ck3 is devoid of any meaningful strategic goals that take multiple generations to implement.

>>2216156
Significantly easier to pirate dlc and use mods if you have a steam copy desu

>>2216362
>You could make a shitton of money if you played it right
>played it right
>right
>in a sandbox
When sandbox became concretebox, anon?

About the second part, depends, I think it should depend in the previous history of those lands, if the previous culture / religion was good, ofc there should be a massive resistance, if not then it should be easy. The problem is in 4X / grand-strategy games those little but highly immersive details are always forgotten.

>This is just a contradiction in terms.
Sorry for the oversimplification, what I mean with term was being a good ruler for commoners and low nobles, but a tyrant with powerful vassals.
In CK2 there was always the problem of trying to be 'Just' while your powerful vassals constantly screwed you and if you tried to defend yourself, you became a tyrant despite it was justified.
CK3 having "Joffrey mode" put those retards in their place (it still is retardd than this mechanic was never implemented in CK2, not even in mods).

>But in Ck3 you just click a button to convert/create new faith and then most of your vassals will flip and within a few years most of your territory will be converted.
CK2 nomads and tribals in a nutshell.

The CK saga became bad the moment Paradox went from focusing in actual Crusader Kings to "muh alt-history fantasy". Don't me wrong, I'm ok with that, but first finish whole crusading part.
Paradox just did with CK2 and is still doing with CK3 what Napoléon and Hitler did: starting many fronts and not finish any of those.

It's going to be 2030, CK4 is going to be released and CK3 will still be unfinished just like todays CK2. And people will still defending this predatory / scammy behaviors from """indie""" strategy game company from Sweden.

>>2216665
actual question, what are you referring to when you say "Joffrey mode"

>>2216362
>rather that you can alter the world according to your wishes much faster than in Ck2
In both games you can change the world to your image within a single generation.
>It's way too easy to secure succession with zero drawbacks
No difference between 2 and 3
>just disinherit lmao
How is this bad? You pay dynasty currency, making it expensive move unless you are well into the game (and you need it the most early on)
> make some ridiculously gamey and overpowered religion/culture
Which takes about two centuries of prep. As opposed to CK2, where you just establish a society and presto! All the benefits are there.
>they're far too accessible
The fuck that's even supposed to mean? That the game has readable tooltips?
How is this bad?
>should come with much more severe drawbacks
1) Such as?
2) Why?
>since the game is very easy you just end up choosing between artificially limiting yourself or getting absurdly overpowered characters and cassus bellis within 100 years of game start.
Applies to both 2 and 3, takes to be delusional to claim 2 is in any way tougher in this regard
> If you wanted to, e.g., make a heresy the dominant European religion then you should need extremely careful planning and should face severe opposition
Which happens, unless, guess what, you are on good terms with people that matter. And if you aren't, they not gonna support you. I know, some 8D planning moves here.
>for a very long time even if you're already the most powerful person in Europe
... because?
The most powerful guy on the continent, ruler of 2/3 of it, set a new religion
His lackeys are into it.
His clergy is into it
So... people should oppose it, because reasons.
Nigga, read how fucking Reformation played out. Bunch of guys decided they don't feel like paying tithe and suddenly third of Europe wasn't Catholic anymore. And the locals didn't oppose it. At all. While being fleeced by the new system, no loss

You are a try-hard who still larp that CK2 is a tough, demanding game

>>2214879 (OP)
So basically you didn't actually play CK2

>>2215779
you just turn that stuff off if you don't like it.

Here's the biggest difference:

I can play ck2 on my laptop but with ck3 I can't

>>2214879 (OP)
>ugliness of magyars
I don't think you ever played the game

>>2214879 (OP)
CK3 is extremely shallow and all of the DLCs add another shallow abstract minigame. That said, I understand if you have an extremely low IQ you might be unable to play anything without terrible low quality 3D models that let you 'role play' more effectively.

>>2216979
>Nigga, read how fucking Reformation played out. Bunch of guys decided they don't feel like paying tithe and suddenly third of Europe wasn't Catholic anymore. And the locals didn't oppose it. At all. While being fleeced by the new system, no loss
Your post is retarded but this takes the cake.
The reformation wars were one of the most devastating and deadliest conflicts in history. Spanning generations even…

>>2216945
It's Game of Thrones reference typically employed by retarded r*dditors

>>2217490
Even Arabs look whiter than your average modern Spaniard in this game

>>2214879 (OP)
Sadly, people like you will never grow up. I recommend euthanasia.

>>2217490
My wife look like this

>>2217675
just like irl

>>2217812
Reminder

>>2215779
>>2216177
You are unable to mention actual criticisms of CK2 (of which there are many) so instead you just repeat 5 different times in 2 posts that you hated one society from one DLC.

>>2217871
>of which there are many
Such as?

>>2217530
I mean like what actual gameplay mechanics is he talking about, I assume high dread keeping vassals in line?

>>2218249
pretty much

>>2216945
>>2217530
>>2218249
>>2218253
>It's Game of Thrones reference typically employed by retarded r*dditors
OP here, I didn't nor the "redditors" created the term, but an actual CK3 developer. In one interview (sorry, I don't remember where) he said that the CK3 team learn from CK2 mistakes (yet, they refused to implement this mode in CK2) and one was the lack of "sandboxing" / freedom of the player to deal with powerful vassals (PV):
If you tried to oppose your PV in CK2, you will get huge massive rebel armies out of nowhere because "tyranny iz le big evil", making you being burnout (I mean, imagine having those massive armies out of nowhere when YOU actually need them).
So in CK3 they fixed that by implementing this "mode" that makes your PV being scared af if you are cruel with them, because you want to be an actual tyrant or because your PV were actual traitors (for example, your previous character got murdered by one of this, but with your new one (the heir) you didn't have enough +INTRIGUE to prove it) and assholes.

>>2217490
OP here, my apologies I confused alans with magyars. In my last campaign my character got an alanic face but his culture was magyar, that's why the mistake.
I still think the magyars should have got an update like the french, english, normans, etc. (specially with the Holy Fury update in helmets and armors).

>>2214879 (OP)
Am I alone in thinking CK2 looks way better than 3?
Especially if you use the graphics overhaul mod from the workshop.
I hate the 3d models in CK3.

Also I'm not switching to 3 because I spent like 200$ on 2, and I'm not doing that again until at least CK4.

>>2218499
OP here, I have mixed feelings about the graphics of both games, but CK3 chad jawline is kinda funny.

>I spent like 200$ on 2
Next time choose Hermes (god of thieves, pirates) as your Patron-God and surf the Internet.

>I'm not doing that again until at least CK4.
Check >>2216665:
>The CK saga became bad the moment Paradox went from focusing in actual Crusader Kings to "muh alt-history fantasy". Don't me wrong, I'm ok with that, but first finish whole crusading part.
>Paradox just did with CK2 and is still doing with CK3 what Napoléon and Hitler did: starting many fronts and not finish any of those.
>It's going to be 2030, CK4 is going to be released and CK3 will still be unfinished just like todays CK2. And people will still defending this predatory / scammy behaviors from """indie""" strategy game company from Sweden.

>>2214879 (OP)
CK3 is crap.
3d looks like shit.
>muh own culture creation
Shouldnt be up to an individual.\
get fucked

>>2217836
i am indian and i can verify this

>>2217977
It's too easy to snowball and you eventually reach a point in which the game devolves into a repetitive act of
>declare holy war
>send your retinue to curbstomp the enemy
>wait for sieges
>win
>find some retard to hold the land for you who is not too awful
>repeat
which is pretty boring

AI is extremely passive and completely unable to make any strategic moves. NPCs all behave the same and they don't have any actual long term goals, they don't think of murdering someone because that will make their relative the next heir, and then their relative will help them out with something. Vassals just do nothing if they like you or join factions if they dislike you. NPCs barely interact with half the mechanics. A typical move playing as a Zunist ruler in the earliest start date is to false convert to Sunni, become a vassal of the Abbasid caliph and subvert his realm from the inside. No vassal NPC will ever do anything like that. Rulers just make nonsensical alliances against you because you blobbed too much and got badboypoints (if that rule is enabled) or they just stay still and do nothing. Good AI should make you feel like you are playing a roleplay heavy multiplayer game.

And CK2 towards the end of its dev cycle started suffering from Paradox's disease of event spam bloat over the past decade. Paradox has become completely uninterested in making complex mechanics-driven simulations so now they just make map based choose your own adventure games in which you spend half of the game clicking through event options. Events are more tolerable in CK than in other Paradox titles since you are supposed to be controlling one person and not "le spirit of the nation" but they still are completely disconnected from the actual gameplay.

The issue with trying to use any of those (or other) criticisms of CK2 is that CK3 is far, far worse at all of them.

>>2214994
fpbp

>>2219192
It should be.
Stay mad.

CK3 is now better than CK2 since Chapter 3. It is even better now with Chapter 4.

I love CK2. CK3 has caught up to it. It really only needs a trade system now, but a real one, not one limited to gay republic plays.

>>2219323
This is a pretty valid assessment as well.

I think even at its worse though CK2 just had so much more going on mechanically even if the AI was completely retarded and would let the player do just about whatever they wanted. I mean I don’t even need to mention the trade, the politics, or the military system, the character interactions were more varied, societies, bloodlines…

But it’s not perfect, neither 2 nor 3 has a great reactive nor interactive vassalage system. Religion blows in both in their own way, religious authority in ck2 is dogshit which usually causes irreversible downward spiral. 3’s religious fervor is better, but the devs went full retard3 mode and decided to attach heresies to specific rulers instead of being independent of them as in 2, also papacy is still a massive nothing burger in 3. Also let’s be honest, while there’s trade in 2, it’s just a trade port building competition mini game, that’s fucking boring, but at least it’s something…

So it’s like in some ways they’re both ass in their own way, but in a lot of other ways, ck3 really is just worse and they’re not fixing or refining it, just expanding the scope endlessly with shallow content.

>>2220524
So I guess you just forgot the HRE and the Papacy then??? So much of it just plays the same still there’s no way you can think it’s ever been better than 2

I bought CK3 at release and played it for a month, got burned out, and dropped it forever.

>>2219323
>AI is extremely passive and completely unable to make any strategic moves. NPCs all behave the same and they don't have any actual long term goals, they don't think of murdering someone because that will make their relative the next heir, and then their relative will help them out with something. Vassals just do nothing if they like you or join factions if they dislike you. NPCs barely interact with half the mechanics. A typical move playing as a Zunist ruler in the earliest start date is to false convert to Sunni, become a vassal of the Abbasid caliph and subvert his realm from the inside. No vassal NPC will ever do anything like that. Rulers just make nonsensical alliances against you because you blobbed too much and got badboypoints (if that rule is enabled) or they just stay still and do nothing. Good AI should make you feel like you are playing a roleplay heavy multiplayer game.
OP here, anon I really think this is the best critic I see not just about CK but about the current state of the 4X / Grand-strategy genre in general. It's really sad there's no game with this depth.

>so now they just make map based choose your own adventure games in which you spend half of the game clicking through event options.
>they still are completely disconnected from the actual gameplay.
THIS.

>>2214879 (OP)
I don't give a fuck about 3d characters.
I'm here for spreadsheets hidden behind digital paintings.
I consider it a waste of resources for them to make 3d characters. Because it's probably like 20 people working on that shit.

>>2216979
The 30 years war happened a full century after Luther died

>>2220548
Enough with your eurocentric shit. Nobody care about the "holy", """"'roman""""" (KEK) empire, or the pagan priest of Rome with funny hats that you cant even play anyway

>>2217871
Maybe, just maybe, that's because societies fucked what was left of the game to the point there is no fucking way to play it anymore?
How is that not clear enough from my posts?

>>2219192
>Shouldnt be up to an individual.\
Tell that to the French kings

>>2220712
>What was Schmalkaldic League, which became the reason why Protestantism (and Luther) survived at all
>Muh 30 years war, the conflict after a CENTURY of religious warfare, with well-entrenched Protestant countries and identities going for 5 generations at that point
Are you by chance American? Can't think of any other Western country where they could skip this stuff even on History 101, given pretty much every single history course for fucking high schoolers covers Reformation and thus how it played out.

>>2220898
Why societies were so bad? In what way ruined the game?

>>2221595
Holy ESL but you have a point
This guy seems genuinely fixated with hating on societies

>>2214879 (OP)
>imprisoning and castrating your vassals, and forcing their family to be your concubines isn't "tyranny"
>seduction, carousing, marriage, societies and conquest aren't "rp"
>marriage alliances, tributaries, vassals and religious diplomacy isn't diplomacy
>trade posts, holding development and great works aren't "economics"
>actually developing your levies and supplementing them with men at arms only for large empires and merchant republics isn't "warfare"
Even ignoring the fact that CK2 does 80% of the above unambiguously better than CK3, none of that is the reason why it's superior.
By far the biggest advantage is that CK2 empires are genuinely unstable, and they need constant work during succession to remain intact and consolidated even at the endgame. In CK3 you just blob, and blob, and blob all the while your vassals just sit there like retards doing nothing.
On top of that, the map actually had texture. The fact that cultures were locked made it matter what retinues you had and locked you out of just stacking retarded modifiers through syncretism. The silk road and gold road made playing in india/persia/africa massively distinct from europe, as did the tribal/nomad land in the north being completely different yet again, and the european merchant republics even if you were still playing as a feudal country in all instances.
And when you changed religions, it actually represented a huge deal for your country with significant mechanical tradeoffs rather than "something you do literally every game because it gives you bigger numbers". Hell, even if you wanted to switch religion to a more OP one you'd end up absolutely cucked by moral authority outside of the handful that start out totally dominant like sunni islam.

CK3 is just fucking boring - at this point it's basically just a VN with an optional map accessory.

>>2221701
>CK2 empires are genuinely unstable, and they need constant work during succession to remain intact and consolidated even at the endgame.
Primogeniture succession solve all of this.

>india/persia/africa massively distinct from europe
Where the capital letters?

>>2221730
>Primogeniture succession solve all of this.
It absolutely does not - if you get a bad death and a shit regency you get completely fucked, regardless of realm size or inheritance
The only thing that reliably solves it is immortality, and that's extremely rare
>Where the capital letters?
IDK

>>2215779
>contrarian
Ah, so just like you, you massive fucking fag?
>all powerful satanic cult
What. Literally worst faction
>random shot at OG fallout
OK you've just been on the short bus your entire life good to know. Everything that bothers you must be creatively bankrupt, youre not the problem at all, little bucko

haha funny bald glasses man

Make America Great Again

>>2222223
rigged, this was the real GET

>>2222223
vlodson vvon

>>2220913
Are you retarded? The religious war being 1 century later shows that it wasn't easy switching religion