Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[RobotSquirrel]

Some things never get fixed change.

They're injecting modern politics into the game still. No doubt a reflection of modern Europe. Nice Ireland btw.

 

[IDtenT]

How is succession for Islamic characters?

Succession for much of Europe is fucked.

That could be the difference.

 

[fantadomat]

How is succession for Islamic characters?

Succession for much of Europe is fucked.

That could be the difference.

Most likely the same, saw a lot of women ruling them.

 

[Mortmal]

Byzantium rolling over everything, not only its super stable now not a single revolt ever, but you have far more armies than anything around. Seems holy war dont create coalitions against you, you crush the muslims one by one, they never defend against you,send shitty levies, even abassides have like 1/3 of your manpower. Absolutely no challenge so far, everything is easily kept in check, feel like playing stellaris sort of.

 

[curry]

You are all super retarded for thinking CK3 would be anything but an absolute pile of shit. Shame on you. The last Paradox game that was actually good and playable on day 1 was Heart of Iron 2.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Fiddled with the game for a bit. Now CK2 by no means had a great interface but I was able to figure out where everything was without the tutorial. And from that figure out how to play the game based on the tool tips. The key difference between CK2 and CK3 is that the interface in CK3 hides things from you in a pretentious desire to be minimalist. But it's shit. Because I can't see half of what I need to and need to hunt for tabs that may not exist. It just feels like in general the game has gone through a great reduction in readability whilst still expecting you to read the invisible tabs. Maybe I need to work at it more but I shouldn't have to. CK2 had a shitty interface but I could figure out what I needed to do in any situation, (clunky as that might be) at a glance. Stop hiding shit from me you sweed fuckers. Take some time out of your busy day getting arse raped by Ethiopians to actually put all the needed menus in.

 

[Fedora Master]

The UI evokes the exact same reaction I have when I start older PDX titles with a lot of DLC. Buttons out the ass and no real explanation what they do.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Is the UI moddable? The old CK2 UI wasn't really made for modern resolutions.
With some tweaks, the information density could be improved.

 

[oscar]

On the plus side UI-wise the character finder seems to work a lot better now. Marriages/betrothals are much nicer to arrange. But I agree that it's more difficult now to work out who tf actually owns what quickly.

I'm a fan of the new trait system. Certain traits used to be always good while others always sucked. Now they seem to inform the characters playstyle and interactions a lot further.

The combat system is also an improvement over the old gameyness of mixed troop types actually tanking your combat performance by making your commanders play unsuitable strategies. Combined troop type forces are actually useful now due to the countering system (previously having 15 heavy foot in a stack of 5,000 light horse would cause them to try and form a shieldwall. The men-at-arms system is good.

Been having fun in my Asturias playthrough tbh. Game seems a little easier and I've been slowly rolling the Muslims out of Spain without too much difficulty (though Ivar the Boneless landed in Galacia with a scary ass invasion stack and put me through a very painful and long war that took the Franks to bail me out and even then only just).

I wouldn't say this is a Day 1 must-buy but definitely not as bad as some people here are suggesting. I think it'll shape up quite nicely with some patches and mods over time.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Noob questions.
- Is it possible to marry some cunt, and then assassinate a lot lot lot of people and then the throne of some foreign land is yours? How would I proceed?

For example, I see that there's current ruler, and his heir. But there's no heir's heir.

 

[Catacombs]

The men-at-arms costing Prestige

In the military tab? I've seen it cost gold. I'm playing as Ireland, fwiw.

 

[Quilty]

Noob questions.
- Is it possible to marry some cunt, and then assassinate a lot lot lot of people and then the throne of some foreign land is yours? How would I proceed?

For example, I see that there's current ruler, and his heir. But there's no heir's heir.

To figure out the heir's heir, in ck2 it was usually enough to check the succession law for that country. If it's male primogeniture, the oldest son gets the title (unless any law changes happen in the meantime). Of course, with elective succession it's much less obvious to guess who it would be. I would assume a similar approach would work in ck3, but I find it frustrating to look for information in its UI, it feels like it's constantly fighting back.

 

[Theodora]

No idea how anyone with their head screwed on rigiht thinks the UI is some major downgrade. Learning CK2 is a pain the ass, in no small part beacuse of how much information is hidden from you. The rew tooltip system alone is one of the best things Paradox has even done.

Overall, all those UI grievances are just baby duck syndrome - we were introduced to it, we got used to it, and we don't like the change. It'll pass. UI is tolerable and MUCH more informative than CKII, with extensive use of highlithting - I like it and will like it more when got used to it.

I entirely agree. A friend who's plenty 'games literate' wanted me to show her CK3 and I think she would've understood far, far less if it wasn't for the new interface.

I kinda understand the discomfort because it is such a huge change from the style of UIs we're used to from Victoria 2 until Imperator, but I don't think it's at all bad for the game.

First I want them to reintroduce nomadic, republican and imperial forms of governance.

I'm curious how they'll handle DLC with this, or if it'll retain any of Imperator's focus on not gatekeeping mechanics. At the very least I hope we get some more bookmarks, the Iron Century one they added to CK2 towards the end seemed great, and it seems like quite a waste to do all that research towards the end of the game's commerciall life.

But ya, hopefully our Byzantine update/whatever isn't too far off. The religion updates quite generally I love (the detail of the maps in that sense is p. crazy), but I hope we'll still see some fleshing out for the "dominant" religions, like the whole College of Cardinals, or Pentarchy thing. It feels a bit empty at the moment to be Orthodox and yet have the Patriarch of, say, Antioch to be so irrelevant.

Apparently the Ari sect of Buddhism was a thing, so the game is very much accurate about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Buddhism

Huh? Why are you surprised? Why would they just make up random Buddhist sects, when there's already a crazy number of them?

Love all the diversity options buahahahahaha

Gender equality options are nothing new since CK2 dude. There are way more interesting subjects to criticise than "pozzed!!"-shrieking.

They're injecting modern politics into the game still. No doubt a reflection of modern Europe. Nice Ireland btw.

The Battle of Tours was a myth, bro.

Noob questions.
- Is it possible to marry some cunt, and then assassinate a lot lot lot of people and then the throne of some foreign land is yours? How would I proceed?

For example, I see that there's current ruler, and his heir. But there's no heir's heir.

That is essentially the political-wrangling method of gaining land, yeah.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

If it's male primogeniture, the oldest son gets the title (unless any law changes happen in the meantime).

What if there are no sons? Someone's uncle or something will get the title?

 

[RobotSquirrel]

In the military tab? I've seen it cost gold. I'm playing as Ireland, fwiw.

Ok its the same as CK2 with exception that everything is craazzy expensive for Retinues. Plus there not being truce timers. I expanded way too fast and bought Retinues too early. I'm not used to how expensive everything is yet especially buildings costing multiple resources. Its a little weird. Definitely don't try to play this game like CK2.

 

[MajorMace]

What if there are no sons? Someone's uncle or something will get the title?

Isn't there a way to display the line of succession ? Have you tried playing with the title in question to see if it appears somewhere on its window ?

 

[Theodora]

Isn't there a way to display the line of succession ? Have you tried playing with the title in question to see if it appears somewhere on its window ?

On CK2 it was under the individual titles, try looking at those?

 

[Xamenos]

Definitely don't try to play this game like CK2.

In my first CK3 game, I started in tutorial island in 1060. Invited high martial people (even easier now you can invite 3 good knights with a single decision). Used mercenaries to conquer a second county. Used my numerical superiority from having two counties to conquer the third, and then snowballed with fabricated claims until my starting character became King of Ireland and I got bored. This is exactly as it was in CK2. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

As for the interface, I don't understand how anyone could consider it acceptable for PC. It's full of large fonts and large buttons, practically made for mobile. The buttons are even aligned to the right so you can hit them with your thumb. And the pop-ups and notifications constantly obscure important stuff. Presumably not a big problem if you're using a touch screen and tapping to dismiss them, but it's very annoying to have to constantly wave your mouse like a maniac so you can actually see what's happening.

And whoever made that "other" option in character interactions that contains TWO FRIGGING LINES deserves to get shot. Would it really have been so hard to just add one extra line in the main list?

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

I don't understand why it's -10%.

It says "defender controlls war targets". He doesn't control shit, and I'm sieging his capital.

Somene explain pls.

 

[Xamenos]

I don't understand why it's -10%.

It says "defender controlls war targets". He doesn't control shit, and I'm sieging his capital.

Somene explain pls.

He controls it if you're still sieging. The siege has to actually end before you conquer the castle.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

So simply by controlling his own capital, he's "winning the war"? I'm also controlling my capital too. So it makes zero sense.

 

[Xamenos]

So simply by controlling his own capital, he's "winning the war"? I'm also controlling my capital too. So it makes zero sense.

You want to conquer him. He wants to stay free. By staying free, he's winning the war, yes.

 

[mondblut]

That is stricter than it was in CK2, right? I can't tell if that's just fucked up CK2 memories on my part or if it is harder to get single heir succession in CK3. I do vaguely remember it being harder to get single heir succession if you started off as a tribal potato, but I don't remember stuff like the hard year-cap of 1050, thought it was just getting high crown authority over a few generations and then passing the law or something before. Guess it also might be that CK3's a bit different than CK2 if you start off in Bumfuck Nowhere rather than being a minor king.

I've read that chechs can have seniority from day one, which makes them a natural culture of choice for anyone who is not a larper pussy who loves giving away his hard-earned stuff.

 

[Lacrymas]

I think it's time to involve our resident expert on UI: Lacrymas, how do you feel about the UI of CK3?

It's aesthetically better than Solasta's (which is truly an abomination, I don't have the words), but that's it. It seems all over the place in terms of button placement, but I'm not that big into grand strategy games (not that I don't like them, I just haven't taken the time to get into them yet) so I'm not sure what you need where.

 

[IDtenT]

First born getting shit is Biblical. I don't understand why it's difficult to explain (to people of the time), especially to Christians, that one dude can inherit everything. Is it really historical?

I guess it has a lot to do with how it defines castle. Building something for a son would I imagine seem normal in that time. Not like there's a lack of space.