Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Axioms]

I'd expect that you can do all this stuff but you have to kludge it. Based on various Tobbzn mods I've looked into all of this should be possible. I guess I'd have to ask him about how you'd actually do it since it isn't as straightforward as CK2.

If you could find out, I'd appreciate it since I'm curious, maybe I'd give modding the game (as in creating mods, don't know when modding came to mean consuming them) a chance again. I would be impressed if it's possible, especially displaying third party filter targets in a nice window with the scripted score values next to them. I suspect there's other CK2 script functionality missing, but was deterred enough from what I wanted to do to where I didn't mod for long enough to find out what else.

I would recommend going here and asking directly, since you know your own complaints in more detail than me: https://discord.com/invite/bYhScktJEv

That's Tobbzn's modding discord.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Weathered the Great Heathen Horde.

 

[Humanophage]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough. Only to find out they decided to remove ledgers. Ledgers are one of the most fun things about these games. How else are you supposed to compare your domain to others and derive satisfaction from your actions? It's also such a natural thing to have in any strategy. It's like people purposefully look for good things in games to then remove them.

 

[Forest Dweller]

It looks like facebook pictures eventually lose their signature.

It's a picture of Aella of Northumbria still holding on to all his territories after successful wars against the northmen.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough.

Which one?

 

[Humanophage]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough.

Which one?

Elder Kings 2. I am not that interested in CK3 itself as Paradox games usually remain unfinished for about 7-8 years while they're working on DLCs. It seemed EK2 was more popular than Elder Kings 1 and much beloved. I recently got into Elder Kings 1 in CK2, and it got me on a TES lore spree, just like Geheimnisnacht earlier got me on a Warhammer lore spree. It was so cozy and reasonable. But it turns out it has a fatal flaw. They added a ton of useless small buildings. This was only a minor issue in the original CK2 or other mods like After the End or Geheimnisnacht. But here if you have, say, 15 holdings, then you need to go to every holding and build every 40 Gold building manually. Given that there are about 5-7 times as many buildings, this renders the mod unplayable once you have enough money.

The autobuild mod for EK1 doesn't work as they had stopped updating it shortly before EK1 stopped getting updates, so they're incompatible.

I feel rather let down by both of those things (the absence of ledgers in CK3 and the building fiasco in EK1). I'm done with EK1, but I'll try to persevere and give EK2 a run. It's just somehow very sad that good things like ledgers must get removed. So much effort undermined by those inexplicable dumb decisions, and the change is in all the wrong directions. The whole interface looks trashy, like it has twice as little info with twice as much clicking around. Paradox games are first and foremost interface games, so it's very painful. This is again quite sad as the other new Paradox games like Stellaris and Imperator: Rome have a fairly sleek interface (despite some glaring errors like the absence of a convenient way to move pops in I:R).

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I'm done with EK1, but I'll try to persevere and give EK2 a run.

Gave it a try myself a few months back and I can't say that I was particularly impressed with it, although these fantasy overhaul mods tend to be eternal works in progress so who knows - might change my mind in the future once enough setting-specific content gets added to it (was more impressed with the Princes of Darkness mod, but that one also suffers from the same sort of incompleteness alongside having some janky mechanics specific to it that made its gameplay less enjoyable for me personally).

I'd recommend trying out an enhanced vanilla experience with some essential mods like RICE and Sinews of War once you get bored of EK2&co. (might as well given that you've paid money for the game). And definitely check out Fallen Eagle which is an excellent, historically grounded total conversion mod that lets you play in the early medieval period.

 

[Axioms]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough.

Which one?

Elder Kings 2. I am not that interested in CK3 itself as Paradox games usually remain unfinished for about 7-8 years while they're working on DLCs. It seemed EK2 was more popular than Elder Kings 1 and much beloved. I recently got into Elder Kings 1 in CK2, and it got me on a TES lore spree, just like Geheimnisnacht earlier got me on a Warhammer lore spree. It was so cozy and reasonable. But it turns out it has a fatal flaw. They added a ton of useless small buildings. This was only a minor issue in the original CK2 or other mods like After the End or Geheimnisnacht. But here if you have, say, 15 holdings, then you need to go to every holding and build every 40 Gold building manually. Given that there are about 5-7 times as many buildings, this renders the mod unplayable once you have enough money.

The autobuild mod for EK1 doesn't work as they had stopped updating it shortly before EK1 stopped getting updates, so they're incompatible.

I feel rather let down by both of those things (the absence of ledgers in CK3 and the building fiasco in EK1). I'm done with EK1, but I'll try to persevere and give EK2 a run. It's just somehow very sad that good things like ledgers must get removed. So much effort undermined by those inexplicable dumb decisions, and the change is in all the wrong directions. The whole interface looks trashy, like it has twice as little info with twice as much clicking around. Paradox games are first and foremost interface games, so it's very painful. This is again quite sad as the other new Paradox games like Stellaris and Imperator: Rome have a fairly sleek interface (despite some glaring errors like the absence of a convenient way to move pops in I:R).

Always wild how divisive the CK2 vs CK3 interface debate is. Many people think the CK3 interfact sucks and then many claim CK2 was unplayable compared to the CK3 interface.

 

[Humanophage]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough.

Which one?

Elder Kings 2. I am not that interested in CK3 itself as Paradox games usually remain unfinished for about 7-8 years while they're working on DLCs. It seemed EK2 was more popular than Elder Kings 1 and much beloved. I recently got into Elder Kings 1 in CK2, and it got me on a TES lore spree, just like Geheimnisnacht earlier got me on a Warhammer lore spree. It was so cozy and reasonable. But it turns out it has a fatal flaw. They added a ton of useless small buildings. This was only a minor issue in the original CK2 or other mods like After the End or Geheimnisnacht. But here if you have, say, 15 holdings, then you need to go to every holding and build every 40 Gold building manually. Given that there are about 5-7 times as many buildings, this renders the mod unplayable once you have enough money.

The autobuild mod for EK1 doesn't work as they had stopped updating it shortly before EK1 stopped getting updates, so they're incompatible.

I feel rather let down by both of those things (the absence of ledgers in CK3 and the building fiasco in EK1). I'm done with EK1, but I'll try to persevere and give EK2 a run. It's just somehow very sad that good things like ledgers must get removed. So much effort undermined by those inexplicable dumb decisions, and the change is in all the wrong directions. The whole interface looks trashy, like it has twice as little info with twice as much clicking around. Paradox games are first and foremost interface games, so it's very painful. This is again quite sad as the other new Paradox games like Stellaris and Imperator: Rome have a fairly sleek interface (despite some glaring errors like the absence of a convenient way to move pops in I:R).

Always wild how divisive the CK2 vs CK3 interface debate is. Many people think the CK3 interfact sucks and then many claim CK2 was unplayable compared to the CK3 interface.

CK3 lacks basic and obvious functionality. For example, why on earth did they remove the "will accept invitation" filter, so that now you have to click every character. Why do I need to zoom in so much to select counties (although there is a functional realm menu). There are all sorts of weird minor decisions as well, like inexplicably placing the icons slightly to the right of the column for which they are responsible. A lot of this seems aimed at artificially prolonging game time. Some of it also relies on mods for basic functionality. For example, there is bizarrely no terrain map in the game and you need to download a mod for it. For some reason, there is no income map. There are industrial amounts of empty interface space but things like map modes are hidden behind a plus button. Of course, the mods stop working any time an update happens, and then they get updated at a different rate, so it's impossible to get them working all at once.

There are a few things that aren't as bad as they seemed though. The 3D portraits are a bit of a downgrade compared to the late CK2 portraits (after all the DLCs), but they are disarmingly cute.

To be honest, I think that's it for me as Paradox games go, like Mass Effect was for Bioware. I also checked the main game, and they made Finns, Estonians, Merya, etc. into Asians. What a bunch of assholes.

 

[Atlantico]

and they made Finns, Estonians, Merya, etc. into Asians

Fingolians, yes that checks out

 

[Axioms]

Just bought it - to play a mod, paradoxically enough.

Which one?

Elder Kings 2. I am not that interested in CK3 itself as Paradox games usually remain unfinished for about 7-8 years while they're working on DLCs. It seemed EK2 was more popular than Elder Kings 1 and much beloved. I recently got into Elder Kings 1 in CK2, and it got me on a TES lore spree, just like Geheimnisnacht earlier got me on a Warhammer lore spree. It was so cozy and reasonable. But it turns out it has a fatal flaw. They added a ton of useless small buildings. This was only a minor issue in the original CK2 or other mods like After the End or Geheimnisnacht. But here if you have, say, 15 holdings, then you need to go to every holding and build every 40 Gold building manually. Given that there are about 5-7 times as many buildings, this renders the mod unplayable once you have enough money.

The autobuild mod for EK1 doesn't work as they had stopped updating it shortly before EK1 stopped getting updates, so they're incompatible.

I feel rather let down by both of those things (the absence of ledgers in CK3 and the building fiasco in EK1). I'm done with EK1, but I'll try to persevere and give EK2 a run. It's just somehow very sad that good things like ledgers must get removed. So much effort undermined by those inexplicable dumb decisions, and the change is in all the wrong directions. The whole interface looks trashy, like it has twice as little info with twice as much clicking around. Paradox games are first and foremost interface games, so it's very painful. This is again quite sad as the other new Paradox games like Stellaris and Imperator: Rome have a fairly sleek interface (despite some glaring errors like the absence of a convenient way to move pops in I:R).

Always wild how divisive the CK2 vs CK3 interface debate is. Many people think the CK3 interfact sucks and then many claim CK2 was unplayable compared to the CK3 interface.

CK3 lacks basic and obvious functionality. For example, why on earth did they remove the "will accept invitation" filter, so that now you have to click every character. Why do I need to zoom in so much to select counties (although there is a functional realm menu). There are all sorts of weird minor decisions as well, like inexplicably placing the icons slightly to the right of the column for which they are responsible. A lot of this seems aimed at artificially prolonging game time. Some of it also relies on mods for basic functionality. For example, there is bizarrely no terrain map in the game and you need to download a mod for it. For some reason, there is no income map. There are industrial amounts of empty interface space but things like map modes are hidden behind a plus button. Of course, the mods stop working any time an update happens, and then they get updated at a different rate, so it's impossible to get them working all at once.

There are a few things that aren't as bad as they seemed though. The 3D portraits are a bit of a downgrade compared to the late CK2 portraits (after all the DLCs), but they are disarmingly cute.

To be honest, I think that's it for me as Paradox games go, like Mass Effect was for Bioware. I also checked the main game, and they made Finns, Estonians, Merya, etc. into Asians. What a bunch of assholes.

Gotta wait for Axioms. Massively better UI, better character sim, and vastly superior simulation/strategy. Hideous looking though.

 

[Joggerino]

Gotta wait for Axioms. Massively better UI, better character sim, and vastly superior simulation/strategy. Hideous looking though.

How much longer?

 

[Üstad]

What boggles my mind is that both quotes* in CK3 and CK2 are just meh. Compare it to Medieval II Total war, there were nice quotes, proverbs evoking emotions, providing info about the past.. Paradox faggots can't even get this right because their customer base are drooling retards. Music was also dogshit in CK2, I remember installing mods to fix the music only it worked inconsistently, then I remember gameplay was dogshit as well and I stopped trying fix this game.

 

[Atlantico]

What boggles my mind is both in CK3 and CK2 are just meh. Compare it to Medieval II Total war, there were nice quotes, proverbs evoking emotions, providing info about the past.

The Redditor post

 

[whydoibother]

Not really the same games. In Total War, you play as the state. In CK2, you play as the family.
CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel. TW is obviously a much bigger game, as a proper strategy,

 

[InD_ImaginE]

CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel.

This doesn't really work honestly, in spite of the meme. I find Paradox Grand Strategy games just to be very number-driven game where the "events" just slightly tweak the number. I tried CK2 several times and it's just about making marriage (and some assassination) + instigating military conflict to paint the map.

I can never understand how you can make a narrative in these games. I guess I just lack the imagination as I am not European to LARP some medieval fantasy.

 

[whydoibother]

CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel.

This doesn't really work honestly, in spite of the meme. I find Paradox Grand Strategy games just to be very number-driven game where the "events" just slightly tweak the number. I tried CK2 several times and it's just about making marriage (and some assassination) + instigating military conflict to paint the map.

I can never understand how you can make a narrative in these games. I guess I just lack the imagination as I am not European to LARP some medieval fantasy.

I don't really try to paint the map when I paint. I don't finish games either. I set some goal, try to achieve it, and quit the game. I want to be king of X and Y, hold Z territory, be a prophet or whatever. Do that and often don't continue. Maybe live out the character's life.
Also I play with console commands, so I will correct some AI behavior I don't like. "Cheating", but also empowering the AI, having it declare the kind of wars I want to play. And maybe just observe the AI play by itself if I get bored, though its usually a complete retards that overextends and collapse what you've built.
Absolutely I don't play for a challenge however, the game is mechanically bad. You don't play Paradox games like you'd play Tetris or even Civilization. You make your own fun, the core game flow is trash.

 

[Üstad]

Not really the same games. In Total War, you play as the state. In CK2, you play as the family.
CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel. TW is obviously a much bigger game, as a proper strategy,

Referring to whom?

 

[Humanophage]

Not really the same games. In Total War, you play as the state. In CK2, you play as the family.
CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel. TW is obviously a much bigger game, as a proper strategy,

I don't think you really play as the family; it's just a marketing gimmick. You play as the family in something like Sir Brante.

The characters in CK are more like an addition to the usual grand strategy oeuvre to account for the more feudal nature of the period. To show that personal ties matter more and to simulate them. But it's still a grand strategy. Unfortunately, it is a very easy grand strategy, but that's a general issue with all strategies that don't bother with the AI.

The whole premise of CK with the map, the econ, the character lists, the titles is not really fit for a game focused on individuals. But it doesn't mean individuals should be absent - they're a welcome addition to the simulation. It would be better if they could combine it with POPs as well as the culture system is crap.

 

[Harthwain]

I don't think you really play as the family; it's just a marketing gimmick. You play as the family in something like Sir Brante.

You play as head of the family. The distinction is important, because you fould have a feud with your sibling(s), for example. It helps to put emphasis on your direct descendants. Sometimes they can mess up things for you.

 

[Humanophage]

I don't think you really play as the family; it's just a marketing gimmick. You play as the family in something like Sir Brante.

You play as head of the family. The distinction is important, because you fould have a feud with your sibling(s), for example. It helps to put emphasis on your direct descendants. Sometimes then can mess up things for you.

I don't interpret that like this. You play as state which has a series of rulers, but they are more fleshed out than in games like EU4 and there is more incorporation of personalist politics. This fleshing out is a very welcome addition highly appropriate to the period and the more such fleshing out there is, the better. It would be good to add more flesh to other aspects like population. But it doesn't replace the core gameplay, which is about the same as in all other Paradox games.

 

[Harthwain]

I don't interpret that like this. You play as state which has a series of rulers, but they are more fleshed out than in games like EU4 and there is more incorporation of personalist politics.

There isn't much to interpret to be honest, because it is not a matter of opinion.

In CK you have relationships with individual people and everything is very personal, from marriages to wars. In Europa Universalis you play literally as a state and your rulers are just a bunch of stats. In Imperator you play as a state (like in Europa Universalis), but you also have some fleshed out individuals who can play a role in the government so there can be a clash of personalities.

So I disagree that it is just a "marketing gimmick". While CK3 has a lot of flaws, it is very distinct in its approach to gameplay.

 

[Humanophage]

I don't interpret that like this. You play as state which has a series of rulers, but they are more fleshed out than in games like EU4 and there is more incorporation of personalist politics.

There isn't much to interpret to be honest, because it is not a matter of opinion.

In CK you have relationships with individual people and everything is very personal, from marriages to wars. In Europa Universalis you play literally as a state and your rulers are just a bunch of stats. In Imperator you play as a state (like in Europa Universalis), but you also have some fleshed out individuals who can play a role in the government so there can be a clash of personalities.

So I disagree that it is just a "marketing gimmick". While CK3 has a lot of flaws, it is very distinct in its approach to gameplay.

I am referring to CK2. CK3's interface is too infuriating so I am not playing that. At the same time, it seems to be improving. For example, I heard that one of the DLCs actually adds the economic map mode which was bizarrely missing. Perhaps with time they will return to the functionality of the older games, so I'll just wait a few more years until it is all fixed.

It is very much a matter of opinion. If it were to be a personal simulator, it would be a disastrous game as this element is very shallow and peripheral to success, and the grand strategy genre is a poor fit for it. The CYOA genre like Sir Brante, Suzerain, perhaps King of Dragon Pass is a good fit. This is like saying you are playing individual colonists in Rimworld rather than playing a colony.

Ideally, all of their games should simply have well fleshed out elements which include persons, population, province development beyond the basics, and a decent research system (something like HoI4 or better). Victoria 2 probably approaches it all best, but CK2 is not far behind in terms of detail as there are many ways in which you can affect the domain. E.g., an interesting choice is whether to concentrate your holdings in one county for the bonuses from councilors or go wide. It's interesting to manage the kingdom, come up with bureaucratic solutions like creating a theocratic vassal that would expand on his own. The "personal politics" mostly boils down to pop-up events that repeat over and over.

 

[Harthwain]

The "personal politics" mostly boils down to pop-up events that repeat over and over.

"Personal politics" and managing the kingdom are one and the same.

I always saw the pop-up events as side-stuff (evenmore so considering I never bought any DLC for CK2 and I still got ~1000 hours in it. I mention this, because I heard one of the DLCs amps-up the events). The management of the realm (both in the internal and external sense) was always at the forefront. At first it is marriages and scheming how to grow up your demesne. Then it is about how to take the leading role in the kingdom (or empire). Then you think how you can keep the spotlight for your dynasty (both close and distant relatives) and it never really stops. It gets even more interesting if you don't rush the "technology" that allows your primary heir to keep everything to himself, meaning you don't have as strong a hold on "your" lands early on and have to take opinions of your vassals more seriously.

 

[Axioms]

CK should be played more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, or a visual novel.

This doesn't really work honestly, in spite of the meme. I find Paradox Grand Strategy games just to be very number-driven game where the "events" just slightly tweak the number. I tried CK2 several times and it's just about making marriage (and some assassination) + instigating military conflict to paint the map.

I can never understand how you can make a narrative in these games. I guess I just lack the imagination as I am not European to LARP some medieval fantasy.

People who play a lot of tabletop stuff like DnD can build massive narratives in their minds but the *actual game mechanics* don't support that. That's where the confusion comes from.

CK3 *has pretensions* to being brante/suzerain but with a wider world but it doesn't live up to the goal. CK2 didn't really try to claim that which is why I respect it more, it was just a grand strategy game with an extra layer.

CK3 is like if Starfield tried to claim to be BG3 but with a sandbox attached. Starfield obviously isn't that and even Howard wouldn't be dumb enough to claim it was. Paradox on the other hand? No shame.