Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[Tigranes]

Have people played around with Excalve game rules? It seems like you can use it to cut down on a lot of the border gore. I'm now trying Limited (IIRC?) for both human and AI and I haven't seen anything this fucked.

I can't imagine playing the game without that rule now. Easily one of the best changes that came with 3.0 / Holy fury.

Though the exact setting that's ideal probably depends where you're playing.

Excessive border gore just isn't realistic (that is, direct control). Apart from all the relics of the empires, the only modern one I can think of is Kaliningrad (yeah, yeah, Russia wish it was an Empire / Rome / Soviet Union etc. etc.).

The irony is that outlandish border gore might happen more often when it's direct control, because then you don't have a vassal to rebel against you, only popular rebellion. And given how easy it is to march over half of Europe if you are so inclined...

Again, I'd recommend everyone up the Exclave rule.

 

[Fedora Master]

In my current game the French held mostly together while the Germans fell apart by 1066, which is... actually highly realistic.

 

[IDtenT]

Modern Byzantine Germany is very ugly.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Have people played around with Excalve game rules? It seems like you can use it to cut down on a lot of the border gore. I'm now trying Limited (IIRC?) for both human and AI and I haven't seen anything this fucked.

I can't imagine playing the game without that rule now. Easily one of the best changes that came with 3.0 / Holy fury.

Though the exact setting that's ideal probably depends where you're playing.

Excessive border gore just isn't realistic (that is, direct control). Apart from all the relics of the empires, the only modern one I can think of is Kaliningrad (yeah, yeah, Russia wish it was an Empire / Rome / Soviet Union etc. etc.).

Within the HRE, you had excessive border gore between the states / principalities.

 

[MajorMace]

The issue with CKIII's border gore is that it combines the historically more accurate system of partition with the brazillion titles of kings that you can create in the game. It's almost impossible to see a proper kingdom of France or a HRE since you'll always have a king of Frisia, of Burgundy, of Aquitania etc.

Another big part of the problem concerns the vikngs being too free to conquer left and right.

edit : Or at least, that's how my game went and therefore these are my early conclusions. Might be utterly wrong.

 

[Theodora]

Within the HRE, you had excessive border gore between the states / principalities.

Internal border gore is a different beast entirely.

 

[fantadomat]

current Paradox?

Was paradox ever different?

It's only been post-CK2 Paradox that shits out half-finished games and then bloats them with DLC. Their previous games were perfectly fine on release and only made better with expansions.

Their previous games were very basic as fuck. More or less the same as EU4 and CK2/3 on release. They have always released the same copy/passed core game and spammed DLCs/expansions.

 

[Xamenos]

Their previous games were very basic as fuck. More or less the same as EU4 and CK2/3 on release. They have always released the same copy/passed core game and spammed DLCs/expansions.

Crusader Kings 1: One expansion
Hearts of Iron 2: Two expansions
Europa Universalis 3: Four expansions
Hearts of Iron 3: Three expansions
Victoria 2: Two expansions.

CK2: Fifteen "major" DLC
EU4: Sixteen and counting

I suppose there's not much of a difference between 4 and 15 if you're an illiterate Bulgarian who needs to use his fingers to count. And I won't even bother going into detail to explain how much meatier were the expansions of old compared to the DLCs of today. There would be no point.

 

[fantadomat]

Their previous games were very basic as fuck. More or less the same as EU4 and CK2/3 on release. They have always released the same copy/passed core game and spammed DLCs/expansions.

Crusader Kings 1: One expansion
Hearts of Iron 2: Two expansions
Europa Universalis 3: Four expansions
Hearts of Iron 3: Three expansions
Victoria 2: Two expansions.

CK2: Fifteen "major" DLC
EU4: Sixteen and counting

I suppose there's not much of a difference between 4 and 15 if you're an illiterate Bulgarian who needs to use his fingers to count. And I won't even bother going into detail to explain how much meatier were the expansions of old compared to the DLCs of today. There would be no point.

LoL it doesn't matter the number of expansions when the content in those "expansions" is as much as in one DLC.

 

[mondblut]

It's almost impossible to see a proper kingdom of France or a HRE since you'll always have a king of Frisia, of Burgundy, of Aquitania etc.

Welcome to 920 AD.

 

[MajorMace]

I didn't mind it in 920AD, yes. But since the situation is the same in 1250AD I'm a little bit sceptic about these systems.

 

[Average Manatee]

I feel like the AI's competency itself is the issue here. Top-level rulers are consistently very weak and unable to cleanup their de jure kingdom well. The fact that vassals give so little to their liege is also a problem.

 

[Space Satan]

Crusader Kings 1: One expansion
Hearts of Iron 2: Two expansions
Europa Universalis 3: Four expansions
Hearts of Iron 3: Three expansions
Victoria 2: Two expansions.

CK2: Fifteen "major" DLC
EU4: Sixteen and counting

If memory serves Victoria II were still sold on CD's backs then so I blame steam for endorsing such DLC strategy. Yet...none of Paradox's pre-STEAM dlc fests enjoyed tens of thousands of concurrent players and a million sold copies. Sadly, this cancerous dlc strategy is what allows Paradox to keep players interested and involved for years and years. Everyone knows that there will be dozens of DLCs for CKIII and over 100k people bought it - no other strategy game could even compete with this or million HoIIV copies sold.

 

[Tigranes]

I didn't mind it in 920AD, yes. But since the situation is the same in 1250AD I'm a little bit sceptic about these systems.

I saw a stable France until it was taken over (inherited?) by Empire of Hispania in the 13th century in one game. Now, in another game, an Orthodox Aquitania has split France in half, weakening it and perhaps causing further fragmentation. But you could see that happen in any version of CK2, too.

If the criticism is that, say, France or HRE breaks apart every single time and never gets a chance, then that would be valid, but we probably don't know that yet either way.

 

[Theodora]

I'm kinda hoping they bring bring back the iron century start date.

Spoiler

 

[Xamenos]

If memory serves Victoria II were still sold on CD's backs then so I blame steam for endorsing such DLC strategy. Yet...none of Paradox's pre-STEAM dlc fests enjoyed tens of thousands of concurrent players and a million sold copies. Sadly, this cancerous dlc strategy is what allows Paradox to keep players interested and involved for years and years. Everyone knows that there will be dozens of DLCs for CKIII and over 100k people bought it - no other strategy game could even compete with this or million HoIIV copies sold.

Steam has enabled them, but it's not responsible for companies figuring out that milking their customers with a bazillion DLC is more profitable. Nor is it responsible for customers being generally fine with being milked. It's just a tool, and a lot of other developers are perfectly happy NOT milking their fanbases.

 

[IDtenT]

If memory serves Victoria II were still sold on CD's backs then so I blame steam for endorsing such DLC strategy. Yet...none of Paradox's pre-STEAM dlc fests enjoyed tens of thousands of concurrent players and a million sold copies. Sadly, this cancerous dlc strategy is what allows Paradox to keep players interested and involved for years and years. Everyone knows that there will be dozens of DLCs for CKIII and over 100k people bought it - no other strategy game could even compete with this or million HoIIV copies sold.

Steam has enabled them, but it's not responsible for companies figuring out that milking their customers with a bazillion DLC is more profitable. Nor is it responsible for customers being generally fine with being milked. It's just a tool, and a lot of other developers are perfectly happy NOT milking their fanbases.

Money is not just profits.

It pays the salaries of your employees. The longer you can keep it going, the more you can employ and the more you can invest in your product.

If Paradox launched a subscription service I'd probably join, even though I already own everything.

 

[Zariusz]

Wut?

 

[LizardWizard]

The issue with CKIII's border gore is that it combines the historically more accurate system of partition with the brazillion titles of kings that you can create in the game. It's almost impossible to see a proper kingdom of France or a HRE since you'll always have a king of Frisia, of Burgundy, of Aquitania etc.

Another big part of the problem concerns the vikngs being too free to conquer left and right.

edit : Or at least, that's how my game went and therefore these are my early conclusions. Might be utterly wrong.

Border gore is exponentially worse in 867 starts, especially with broken heresy spread and Pope spamming crusades that early. With 1066 it's not uncommon to see a proper looking England/France/HRE and unified Iberia into the 1200s

I'm kinda hoping they bring bring back the iron century start date.

Give me 1081 back

 

[Zariusz]

Of course, it was obvious that someone will make this mod
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2219905226&searchtext=

Something for you fantadomat

 

[mondblut]

I didn't mind it in 920AD, yes. But since the situation is the same in 1250AD I'm a little bit sceptic about these systems.

Guess the AI rulers of France weren't as good as actual Capets. Then again, before 1200 most of France was actually England.

 

[Fedora Master]

Wut?

Ye olde braphogge.

 

[Fedora Master]

Of course, it was obvious that someone will make this mod
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2219905226&searchtext=

Something for you fantadomat

Honestly that's the map the game should have had from the beginning.

 

[Theodora]

Boring.

 

[IDtenT]

The conversion to feudalism with Poland went a lot better than the two times I did it with Ireland.