Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Zero Credibility all of it comes down to the fact that they made CK3 even harder to fail than CK2 - it's specifically designed so that you can change your mind and do anything you want on a whim and still get your candy. CK2 was like this too, but lifestyle perks make it even easier to get the swiss army tools that you need, and the dread system allows you to control your vassals by being nice or being mean in equally easy ways.

I enjoyed larping with it but play it with even half a mind for optimisation and you're just going to end up with uberempire, because the game essentially plays in god mode.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
2,951
Yeah, but not to worry, I'm sure mods will fix it. Or at least make it slightly less silly. What I'm more worried is streamlining of warfare. Now granted, CK2 with it's over-complex systems that the player had little to no impact on was hardly great in this regard, but this seems like instead of fixing it, they just stripped everything to a bare minimum they could get away with. Two things come to mind:

1) The way levies (do not) work now. Now granted, the way it used to work in CK2, with needing to raise individual levies, combine them, then send them where you wanted them was an annoying exercise to repeat in every single war. But I'm not sure being able to just summon them in wherever part of your realm you want, no matter how far or how isolated is a good idea. It makes playing a huge sprawling realm even easier, and isolated enclaves far more defensible. But the worse part is that past early game, levies are absolutely worthless: Man at Arms not only upgrade dramatically, but they can literally teleport across your entire realm. You can teleport an army right in the path of a moving enemy stack, completely destroy them because of how powerful MaA are, then raise them the same day on the other part of the realm to repeat the same.

2) Instead of finally adding naval battles and blockades, they completely stripped away that part of the game by making armies walk across water. Besides how stupid it is for there to always be enough ships around for everyone to hire, even if they are in massive debt, even in the middle of nowhere, even in hostile territory, even if they are broken and running, even if they are a fucking peasant revolt, this change has a massive impact on warfare now. AI uses ships to a ludicrous degree, sailing great distances simply because it's slightly faster than walking, constantly landing at your capital, and after defeated running away to sea with no way for you to stop them, making it even more important to field MaAs, because only they can cause enough casualties to avoid having to repeat the same thing again and again. I cannot emphasis enough how much I hate what they have done with this.

Combined these two changes make the map feel small and distances inconsequential. A landlocked Bavaria should have trouble getting troops to help their ally in Ireland, that was a good thing for fuck sake. Now it feels like everyone is right next door and can send their armies everywhere at a drop of a hat. Seriously, fuck this shit.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Repeating the asskicking a bunch can actually be good, though.

If you repeatedly crush a stack, but most of them live and run away only to regroup and fight again, you get battle score every time you kick their ass. If you wipe them out to the last man and erase from from existence, you get battle score...once. Now that your opponent no longer has an army to fight you with, you're forced to siege his shitty castles, which takes WAY too long, for clay you don't even want.
 

LizardWizard

Cipher
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
991
Most of the content (aside from retinues), from Legacy of Rome seem like flavor pack material. Byzaboos need their fix.
 

Theodora

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
4,620
Location
anima Bȳzantiī
I'm torn on it being a "legacy of Rome" type thing; as much as I love to byzaboo it up, it just won't feel worth it until they add imperial govts.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
It's solid and stable, but despite the new mechanics, map painting is really the only thing you can do in the current game, which runs against my preferred CK3 play style.
 

Preben

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
3,821
Location
Failsaw, Failand
Wow, interest in this one died off fast
Not much to talk about, really. Stable release and solid foundation for subsequent content additions, but overall a barebones experience at this point.

No big drama at release, the game is relatively stable and moderately entertaining. Compare that to Imperator 's release, which was massively entertaining. The release, not the game itself.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
2,951
Yep, there's just very little to the game at this point. I mean, what does it have that CK2 did not when it started? Well, it has retinues (kind of), religion reformation / creation, life focuses (again, kind of) and old gods starting date? And that's it, I think? Everything else is going to be sold to us as DLCs. Again.

Anyway, every time I think about this game I find something else that pisses me off about it. This time, it's that there is no lasting effects of warfare whatsoever. You can raid a county repeatedly with nothing but a small dip in its development, if even that. Hell, I don't remember there even being an opinion penalty for the guy whose lands you just burned down. Conquered a new county in a devastating war? Just park your marshal there for a couple of years, and it will produce taxes and men like it was always yours. This is not only silly, but it also greatly contributes to the snowball effect both for the player and the AI. There are just no consequences to war in this game.

Granted, CK2 was not great in this regard either, but it was still better than this. Conquered counties could be stuck with decades of reduced taxes and levies. Raiding could burn down buildings and eventually holdings. Sieges would reduce prosperity and eventually depopulate counties. Here, we get what exactly? Control can to raised to 100 with a decent marshal in a couple of years. Development can maybe fall a little, but development in general has such a small effect on taxes / levies that's not even worth mentioning. Which is another problem, development means so little that besides the special buildings there really is not that much of a difference between Constantinople and some ass end of nowhere in Siberia.
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,816
Anyway, every time I think about this game I find something else that pisses me off about it. This time, it's that there is no lasting effects of warfare whatsoever. You can raid a county repeatedly with nothing but a small dip in its development, if even that. Hell, I don't remember there even being an opinion penalty for the guy whose lands you just burned down. Conquered a new county in a devastating war? Just park your marshal there for a couple of years, and it will produce taxes and men like it was always yours. This is not only silly, but it also greatly contributes to the snowball effect both for the player and the AI. There are just no consequences to war in this game.

The province will pay 100% taxes BUT ALSO shit out rebellions every couple of years as long as it is wrong religion/wrong culture.
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,036
Location
NZ
The 30 years of the province running at a loss was kind of silly TBH. No kings would have bothered waging wars at all if they would probably be long-dead before the conquered land provided any revenue.
 

Hace El Oso

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
3,114
Location
Bogotá


Mod said:
4840D80E8787066719C2E151CDB741068C558761

:love:
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
The province will pay 100% taxes BUT ALSO shit out rebellions every couple of years as long as it is wrong religion/wrong culture.
The rebellions of which will tank control constantly, yes. You can avoid this by assigning someone of right religion and culture to the province as a vassal. And then collecting 100% of it anyway via Guantanamo Bay Mode.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom