Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[AwesomeButton]

Focus trees sorta? Secrets. Vassal contracts. Then 3D models, gay rights, sex cults.

Thanks!

I guess hooks as well. But anyway, nothing that couldn't have been done with another DLC for CK2.

 

[fantadomat]

Can anyone actually list the important changes in CK3? Please bold "3D portraits" in case I miss it.

Focus trees sorta? Secrets. Vassal contracts. Then 3D models, gay rights, sex cults.

Women and race rights too.

 

[Theodora]

Can anyone actually list the important changes in CK3? Please bold "3D portraits" in case I miss it.

Not an expert, but: baronies are now the lowest map demarcation (playable characters can hold them, but barons aren't playable); hooks, stress, dread; new religion, culture (long-term progress, replaces tech, getting an extensive rework in Royal Court inc. languages), and dynasty systems (sense of progression, branches); and lifestyles were expanded upon to give an RPG-like sense of progression.

And for the most part, the map is more detailed and covers further south over the Horn of Africa and the Ivory Coast, and east into modern-day Mongolia and Thailand.

Whether you like these changes is all down to preferences, but you it's definitely got more than CK2 without DLC, nevermind the actual release version. If you look at the patch notes for e.g. the Old Gods, you can see just how much that we take for granted was missing from the release version of CK2: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Patch_1.10

 

[thesecret1]

That implies that they should've simply regurgitated out CK2 + expacs on a new engine. Firstly that isn't so straight forward, given the mess the code was likely in by the end; and more importantly perhaps, simply re-implementing CK2+DLC would cut off a looot of design space and limit what directions CK3 can go in.

They're gonna regurgitate CK2 mechanics anyway and sell them as DLCs.

 

[Theodora]

They're gonna regurgitate CK2 mechanics anyway and sell them as DLCs.

To some degree, probs. But I don't think, for example, republics or nomadic tribes are going to be implemented the same as before.

(Most painful absence is a meaningful imperial system atm though.)

 

[Harthwain]

(Most painful absence is a meaningful imperial system atm though.)

There is no anti-pope mechanic too, which is a shame.

 

[Theodora]

Biggest downside to the more open religion system, yeah. I really hope they consider adding some faith-wide mechanics.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Do I understand correctly that while you can raise local levies on a County basis, you can't selectively raise knights, unless you raise all armies and then disband the excess levies?

EDIT: Actually when you click a button for raising levies in a county this will automatically ALSO raise your men-at-arms and knights. Some confusing UI there.

 

[Axioms]

I feel like CKIII is a good base, it just needs to be expanded and iterated on. I really like what they did with Intrigue, for example. Stress is also an interesting system, because it makes a lot of behavior that would be nonsensical in the old games, make more sense.

Its definitively their best launch in a good time.

Is CK3 vanilla more barebones than CK2 vanilla?

No, CKII was barebones as hell at the start.

Honestly, CKII only hit its real stride in the "Old Gods" expansion.

Also, CKII had absolutely pretty shit optimization and it started getting worse, until the game pretty much became borderline unplayable after a few centuries after a few DLC (I think it was by Horse Lords that this started?), until around Reapers' Due, then every version got faster.

CKIII is also pretty well optimized, I can play it with everything on lowest and all I got is a I5-3210M, 8gb of RAM and a Intel HD Graphics 4000. I did have to stop playing because the temperatures worried me (fucking 90ºC and above). If I had a dedicated videocard or a more modern internal card, I would run it no issue.

It absolutely is more barebones because they just HAD to focus on expanding the map into places nobody gives a shit about. The end result is that a nigger tribal plays exactly the same as a Viking.

Map wans't expanded that much, just a bit south until the Gulf of Guinea and all the Horn of Africa, and somewhat to the East until you hit Bengal or so.

And "nigger" tribals don't play the same as vikings. Vikings get sea raiding by culture and CBs on pretty much everyone and his mom.

Pretty sure they are going to add China in the future, its all but confirmed.

Intrigue is still a major expansion minimum away from being good.

 

[Space Satan]

Many people here do no remember clearlly how CKII was on release. And CKIII is of better quality and content than CKII was by far.

 

[fantadomat]

Funny thing,was just reading a thread on the paracux forum. And most people there agree that the game is extremely shallow.

Many people here do no remember clearlly how CKII was on release. And CKIII is of better quality and content than CKII was by far.

So? Why is all that shit that was added in ck2 not in ck3? It is supposed to be a build up not restarting. All the code in ck2 could be easily added to ck3 but they chose to make it empty.

 

[Axioms]

Many people here do no remember clearlly how CKII was on release. And CKIII is of better quality and content than CKII was by far.

Yes but expectations a decade after CK2 came out are higher...

 

[Jonathan "Zee Nekomimi]

Yeah but CK2 was released on a pretty small budget a decade ago. CK3 devs had tons of mechanics ready to go, huge budget, tons of dev time, etc. When you compare the expectations vs the results it makes CK3 look really bad even when talking about no DLC vanilla CK2.

That implies that they should've simply regurgitated out CK2 + expacs on a new engine. Firstly that isn't so straight forward, given the mess the code was likely in by the end; and more importantly perhaps, simply re-implementing CK2+DLC would cut off a looot of design space and limit what directions CK3 can go in.

The Sims series did that and it worked just fine for then

 

[whydoibother]

Pretty sure they are going to add China in the future, its all but confirmed.

Adding China and distinct Empire mechanics to go along with China and be used by all empire rank states would get me to play again.
But honestly, I just wish Mount&Blade Bannerlord would just copy all of the interpersonal interactions from CK2, so we can have this game + fun combat. Its already ran from the first person, where you control ONE GUY, and not a kingdom per say, so it would mix great with Mount&Blade's combat.

Many people here do no remember clearlly how CKII was on release. And CKIII is of better quality and content than CKII was by far.

Remember how religion was a paid DLC for Civilization V, but it was included from the start in Civilization VI? This is how its supposed to be. A sequel includes the previous game, complete with all its expansions.

 

[Deflowerer]

Yeah but CK2 was released on a pretty small budget a decade ago. CK3 devs had tons of mechanics ready to go, huge budget, tons of dev time, etc. When you compare the expectations vs the results it makes CK3 look really bad even when talking about no DLC vanilla CK2.

That implies that they should've simply regurgitated out CK2 + expacs on a new engine. Firstly that isn't so straight forward, given the mess the code was likely in by the end; and more importantly perhaps, simply re-implementing CK2+DLC would cut off a looot of design space and limit what directions CK3 can go in.

This is very sensible and the way to go in a game that has had almost a decade worth of add-ons. A new game should be an opportunity to rethink everything you learnt over the course of the previous title, take out everything superfluous and focus on fundamentals that would enable you to build it out again (improved and expanded) over the course of the next years.

Mind you, I am talking about it in abstract, not in relation to CK3 per se in which I am unqualified to really judge (haven't played CK2, haven't played CK3 enough).

Also not sure Sims is a good example, the nickel and diming there is magnitudes greater than in Paradox titles.

 

[Theodora]

Also not sure Sims is a good example, the nickel and diming there is magnitudes greater than in Paradox titles.

EA makes Paradox look like saints, honestly. (Which says a lot about just how far the bar has raised on consumers expecting to be over-and-repeatedly charged.)

SPEAKING OF WHICH,

Adding China and distinct Empire mechanics to go along with China and be used by all empire rank states would get me to play again.

I would pay so much for a CK-level simulation of the messy court dynamics of medieval China.

 

[vonAchdorf]

If Tencent didn't have such a hands off approach, they could probably get them to make a China CK.

 

[Axioms]

Intrigue is still a major expansion minimum away from being good.

Its better than CKII, for sure. Hooks (Strong and Weak), Secrets, and many new intrigue actions.

CKII intrigue was far shallower.

Adding China and distinct Empire mechanics to go along with China and be used by all empire rank states would get me to play again.

Yes, that would be pretty dope.

China is pretty different from any states east of it, so I suspect it will be a long time until they add China. Which suits me just fine, I would rather that we have increased depth for the rest of the world first.

Yes they added secrets and hooks. But if you compare that to my annoying linked wiki it is actually a very limited addition. When I wrote my system for that, also named secrets, in 2015, there was a lot more going on and not really a lot more work for devs to make it more interesting.

It is better than CK2 but not 10 years of experience better. I don't get how that wasn't in CK2 as early as the 2013 expansions, really. Super obvious thing. And they left out many other super obvious stuff. Hence they are a major expansion away at minimum from acceptable intrigue.

 

[Fedora Master]

Adding China is exactly the kind of retarded decision PDX would make. Remember the map from CK1? Good times.

 

[Fedora Master]

India just tanked the entire games performance when it released but who cares right?

 

[AwesomeButton]

IMO not only China, but also India and sub-Saharan Africa have no place in a game trying to model medieval European societies and politics. The broader the map, the shallower and more catch-all the mechanics will be.

For a good and plausible model, the best scope is a "theater" or region, that's when your "historical simulation" looks less like a meme factory and more like what you are advertising. The British Isles plus a bit of Scandinavia is one option. The Iberian Penunsula plus bits of north Africa is another, or the Balkans, or the Eastern European plains, or Germany - France - Italy.

I'm not against niggers, just let's keep their campaigns and maps segregated from other campaign settings which in any case didn't in any significant way interact with them historically.

If total war could release epxansion campaigns with their own campaign map, it shouldn't be any difficulty to do for paradox' modern games. They just don't want to, they would rather have all the kitchen sinks thrown in at the same time.

 

[Fedora Master]

The influence of sub-saharan Africa on medieval Europe was minimal and could easily be handled via event chains. Same with India.

 

[Preben]

The influence of sub-saharan Africa on medieval Europe was minimal and could easily be handled via event chains. Same with India.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a natural consequence of having North Africans playable. Otherwise they would sit with their backs against Terra Incognita, perhaps with some annoying events about raids from the desert.

 

[Fedora Master]

The influence of sub-saharan Africa on medieval Europe was minimal and could easily be handled via event chains. Same with India.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a natural consequence of having North Africans playable. Otherwise they would sit with their backs against Terra Incognita, perhaps with some annoying events about raids from the desert.

How terrible.

 

[Theodora]

IMO not only China, but also India and sub-Saharan Africa have no place in a game trying to model medieval European societies and politics.

That's the thing, it's kept the name but Crusader Kings, for better or for worse, isn't meant to be focused exclusively on Christendom anymore.