Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Axioms]

Axioms

Like I said, I play the game and have no issue role playing characters or seeing how the different stats and traits differentiate them, how they interact with the world, and what the narrative of their life is.

There are more than enough events, both quasi random and player controlled, along with other game mechanics to interact with to establish the narrative of your character's life as a ruler.

You can tell me my eyes are lying all you want, it won't change anything. I understand that your own preferences are for a deeper simulation, but your own preferences are not objective fact.


For game design in general, deeper simulations are often very lazy design, even though it might seem like it is the opposite. It is lazy design because it is always easy to say, "well, we'll just make another statistic, attribute, variable to track X and add checks/mechanics for that" when faced with the desire to adjust the design in some way. But down that path lies an unworkable, broken, unbalanced, bug filled, unpredictable behemoth that has a poor ability to even communicate to the player what is happening and why. If players don't understand how X is causing Y, because it is actually A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and X causing Y, it doesn't actually create any meaningful gameplay opportunity. Finding ways to adjust the design or add interesting choices without increasing the complexity (or even removing some if possible) is what good design is.

I know that personally from designing RPG systems and other similar board games that I then play with my friends. When I first started out I always tended towards just adding additional stats and mechanics to try to add some kind of gameplay choice. But that tended towards clunky systems where various things got quickly out of hand and behaved in distinctly unrealistic ways. And while designs for computer games are different in that they can handle the mathematical crunch for you, it doesn't change how much work would be needed to get so many systems working well together or the difficulties with communicating what is actually happening with the players. But you also have the added difficulty that you then have to create an AI that is supposed to navigate all those systems and use them effectively. Assuming you want to create a challenging game rather than just an interesting toy, anyway.

Paradox games are already very much towards the complex end of things and already suffer from a lot of those problems. They already derive much of their enjoyment from being toys (deep simulations can be appropriate for toys) to try interesting things in rather than games to overcome challenges in. Adding much more complexity is not a productive move for CK3. Finding ways to add in additional interesting choices while minimizing the increase in the complexity is the way to go.

You keep saying this. No one is telling you that "your eyes are lying". I'm saying the opposite actually. In fact in this specific post you are literally agreeing with what I was saying but the difference is you think that that is good. Which is a valid opinion. But it is just as subjective as mine.

Additionally you are doing an extremely common and traditional strawman about "complexity". No one is saying raw complexity is good by itself. I absolutely agree that "finding ways to add in additional interesting choices while minimizing the increase in the complexity is the way to go". I want as little excess complexity as possible. That is not the same as what you are saying implying in the rest of your post though.

Additionally I think there is a huge problem in that Paradox games are *absolute dogshit* at efficiently conveying information to the player. So to me "Paradox games already have trouble conveying the detail of the existing simulation" is a vacuous argument because the issue is driven by the shit tier UI and not the simulation detail, which is minimal and shallow.

Adding more information should have a specific thematic goal and it should be conveyed well. Sometimes you want the game to simulate a specific thing and that thing just requires a lot of simulation detail. So the choice isn't add gameplay complexity for no reason or make a simple and elegant design. It is represent the thing you want to represent or don't represent the thing.

You don't care if the game meaningfully represents thematic potential effectively and you prefer to construct an elaborate head canon sandcastle instead of having the game have a robust simulation. And that is fine. People can have preferences. Other people have different preferences which they also want to advocate for. That is also fine.

In any case I think we are done here. I'm actually going to put you on ignore in fact. Because I don't think we have anything meaningful to say to each other. We have different game preferences and that is not going to change.

 

[darkpatriot]

You keep saying this. No one is telling you that "your eyes are lying". I'm saying the opposite actually. In fact in this specific post you are literally agreeing with what I was saying but the difference is you think that that is good. Which is a valid opinion. But it is just as subjective as mine.

No, I still definitely disagree with your statement that Crusader Kings 3 doesn't have a system for tracking the hobbies, traits, personalities, philosophies, etc. of characters and then using those to inform and drive gameplay and character relations. It clearly does. That is what I mean by the "lying eyes" things. It clearly does have those things, because I see them with my own eyes as I play the game. It just doesn't track that all in granular enough detail to suit you. But it absolutely does have them, and have them to a more than adequate enough level of detail. Certainly enough for myself and the other people who enjoy the game.

I mean, your example was your character having a hobby and then going to do that hobby with your friends to develop relationships. That was not only already in the base game in a somewhat limited format (limited to hunting and feats), but was greatly expanded in T&T and also expanded a bit in other DLC. Like the poetry hobby/mechanic, for example, which was introduced in Northern Lords, IIRC.

 

[Forest Dweller]

 

[Space Satan]

Here execution should be beating with stone dildos!

 

[Forest Dweller]

My pope called a crusade against Catholics while they were already fighting a crusade against me. Result: double-whammy!

 

[Barbarian]

Is this game still shit after the dlc and patches so far? Or it half-decent now?

I mean at least as good as ck2 was(which wasn't much to begin with)

 

[janior]

its a paradox cookie clicker that looks like shit, IS IT GOOD GUISE

 

[Average Manatee]

I haven't played CK3 with all the recent DLCs, but while they've fixed a few things significant parts of the game still feels too... gamey. It's hard to explain in a way that doesn't involve a wall of text, but CK2 is still far superior whether you're roleplaying or metagaming, because it's a better at roleplaying and if you want to metagame then you want to do it in a game where you feel like you're getting an edge by doing so rather than just playing as intended.

 

[darkpatriot]

I haven't played CK3 with all the recent DLCs, but while they've fixed a few things significant parts of the game still feels too... gamey. It's hard to explain in a way that doesn't involve a wall of text, but CK2 is still far superior whether you're roleplaying or metagaming, because it's a better at roleplaying and if you want to metagame then you want to do it in a game where you feel like you're getting an edge by doing so rather than just playing as intended.

That is why I really dislike the perks system. It is the gamiest system in the game. Once you know your general gameplay style, you almost always go for the same key perks with every dude you manage. There is very little variation in how I develop character's perks. And they even let you respec them for stress cost if a character you take over playing hadn't been developed the way you like.


I would really like to see the whole perk system removed, and all the current gameplay options it unlocks tied to other character/religious/culture traits in some way. That because is would encourage you to use gameplay options you normally don't use if a character happened to have them and be good at them.

 

[DesolationStone]

While I was "infirm" for the game, I was able to (in no particular order)
- Conquer literally 3/4 of the Middle East
- Fuck my wife hard and get her pregnant
- Make a pilgrimage to Rome, starting in Tbilisi, crossing the Costantinopole, landing in Albania, crossing the Tyrrhenian Sea to land in Puglia, reaching the Vatican, and then walking back from Egypt to Georgia.
- Make a hunt
- Have a giga party with all my vassals in Jerusalem
- Kill my worst rival in combat
- Lead like 10/15 battles as a leader
I mean, Paradox, if I have the INFIRM trait, maybe, ehm, I'm infirm?

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

That's literally abelism though. The infirm should be able to do anything you can do. It's not as if they're incredibly ill or anything /s

 

[Average Manatee]

Do you not get put under a regency when unfirm like CK2?

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I mean at least as good as ck2 was(which wasn't much to begin with)

It's better than CK2, in that it isn't broken by 100 DLCs. (Yet.)

 

[Tirofijo]

I mean at least as good as ck2 was(which wasn't much to begin with)

It's better than CK2, in that it isn't broken by 100 DLCs. (Yet.)

Except there’s no HIP mod for CK3 (and never will be) to take that DLC bloat, delete India and the Orient, and make a game out of the rest.

 

[Delterius]

and the Orient

crusader kings are indeed famous for going anywhere but the east

 

[Tirofijo]

crusader kings are indeed famous for going anywhere but the east

Of course I use the term in the later sense. Saladin, not Fu Manchu, is what CK needs.

 

[Delterius]

crusader kings are indeed famous for going anywhere but the east

Of course I use the term in the later sense. Saladin, not Fu Manchu, is what CK needs.

I don't think any portrayal of the holy land is complete without Persia and Central Asia. And the general area of the East only became more immersive with Jade Dragon. I also believe that the East is the central protagonist of any story set in the crusades. Until of course DLCs about northern crusades and such like come knocking.

I dislike India only in so far that it feels like it is set up to be it's own isolated domain. But I've had great fun uniting India as both a muslim nomad and a tamil nestorian. Wouldn't want that experience removed from any CK game I play.

In short, whenever people say 'It's called CRUSADER KINGS' I just think that, precisely, which is why I want the map to at least reach the steppe. It would be very mid otherwise.

 

[Barbarian]

crusader kings are indeed famous for going anywhere but the east

Of course I use the term in the later sense. Saladin, not Fu Manchu, is what CK needs.

Early CK2 where Genghis Khan and other horde conquerors were simply spawns close to easternmost Anatolia made much more sense than when they added later with part of China being on the map.

They got to a point where they legit ignored the game title. Even a fantasy aztec medieval invasion of europe was added.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Adding the East was just better, that old CK/CKII map straight out deleted like 1/3 of the Eranshah, and Persia is a massively important player in world history.

It also made Zoroastrian games WAY more interesting, because before you would just have muslims stomping around and having to fight Muslims. Now the East is a free-for-all between muslims, tibetans, hindus, Western Protectorate and nomad hordes.

The real issue is that India just feels weirdly detached from the rest of the game-area most of the time, except perhaps Tibet, Western Persia and Central Asia. Sometimes you get the odd Super-India blob coming out of the subcontinent, that's interesting. Even subsaharan Africa has more contact with the rest of the gameworld than India.

 

[Tirofijo]

It makes no sense to attempt to depict nomadic/steppe societies in a game that is based entirely around arbitrary lines on a map, ownership of the towns, cities and abbeys within those spaces and the static populations that inhabit them. That requires a different game, and this one barely tries to do what it says on the tin already.

Mongols, Huns, Timurids, they’re meant to fulfil the gamified version of their real function for people from Krakow to Baghdad which is huge, demonic doomstacks of slavering foreigners threatening to engulf the whole world. Crusader Kings doesn’t even make a serious effort to simulate Holy Orders or proper medieval civilization like the Hanseatic League, why would I give a damn about Curry Kings and the Last of the Mohicans out in Tibet?

 

[deuxhero]

The Core Expansion will, among other features, introduce something that has been frequently requested by you in the community. Without saying too much, it will definitely make the game more challenging - and we’ve spent a lot of time making sure that it’s as dynamic and immersive as possible, while also presenting you with new ways to strategize. We’re also going to introduce a feature dripping with medieval flavor, a system that can be used by clever players to really make their mark on the world. All in all, this expansion will lean more towards the systemic side of the game.

As with the Core Expansion, the Major Expansion will focus on several things that have been requested by you in the community for ages - some of what we’re choosing to do has been asked for since the early days of Crusader Kings as a game series. One of the feature sets comes up very frequently when we see you discuss what you’d like to see in expansions - and another is brought up now-and-again as a powerful player fantasy. No matter what, we promise that this expansion will provide several new and fresh perspectives, and should please you regardless of which style of expansion you prefer, systemic or roleplay-focused. We can barely wait until you get your hands on this one, and personally, I can say that it’s one of the expansions I’ve been wanting to make since my early days working on CK2 - its time will soon come!

Any idea what this is? I've heard unlanded play suggested by commenters which would fit "powerful player fantasy.

 

[Delterius]

It makes no sense to attempt to depict nomadic/steppe societies

loved playing them tbh

 

[Tirofijo]

loved playing them tbh

That’s nice, but it doesn’t make their mechanics any less awkward and absurd.

 

[Delterius]

loved playing them tbh

That’s nice, but it doesn’t make their mechanics any less awkward and absurd.

their mechanics were fun tbh and i don't think the region is complete without them

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

The Core Expansion will, among other features, introduce something that has been frequently requested by you in the community. Without saying too much, it will definitely make the game more challenging - and we’ve spent a lot of time making sure that it’s as dynamic and immersive as possible, while also presenting you with new ways to strategize. We’re also going to introduce a feature dripping with medieval flavor, a system that can be used by clever players to really make their mark on the world. All in all, this expansion will lean more towards the systemic side of the game.

As with the Core Expansion, the Major Expansion will focus on several things that have been requested by you in the community for ages - some of what we’re choosing to do has been asked for since the early days of Crusader Kings as a game series. One of the feature sets comes up very frequently when we see you discuss what you’d like to see in expansions - and another is brought up now-and-again as a powerful player fantasy. No matter what, we promise that this expansion will provide several new and fresh perspectives, and should please you regardless of which style of expansion you prefer, systemic or roleplay-focused. We can barely wait until you get your hands on this one, and personally, I can say that it’s one of the expansions I’ve been wanting to make since my early days working on CK2 - its time will soon come!

Any idea what this is? I've heard unlanded play suggested by commenters which would fit "powerful player fantasy.

Something is telling me unlanded play as well.

Gosh, properly supported unlanded play could be so good. Imagine starting as some rando and working your ass into power.

Unlanded would also be useful in a lot of cases. For example, the case of rulers who lose their lands. In history, it was very common for deposed rulers to head to friendly courts and try to regain their titles. Losing all your land shouldn't be game over, rather you end up living in a foreign court and needing to obtain supporters and allies to try and regain your title.

Unlanded could also allow the appearance of a lot of non-feudal govts - Carolinglian government, Chinese Government, etc.