Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III

[deuxhero]

One would assume the challenge of landless is gaining land.

 

[Minecrawler]

Can't see how this will work well. Owning land is basically the challenge of CK3. The game is (annoyingly) set up so that vassals give you practically nothing in terms of military or economy but love to revolt. What's the difficulty for unlanded characters? I assume if you're some kind of merc band you can still raise retinue (the actual army units that matter), can still fight wars, capture characters and ransom them (the actual way to make money, not holding shit ass counties that give 1g/month), can still plot to seduce the queen and force the king to let you marry his daughter or w/e your path is to getting a realm, and so on.

Difficulty is the least of concerns, it just depends on how restricted will be landed vs unlanded.
Under certain conditions, I imagine, landed rulers should be able to raise armies and wipe out unlanded gang.

 

[Socrates]

The game is (annoyingly) set up so that vassals give you practically nothing in terms of military or economy but love to revolt.

Yes this is was a common monarch problem of the era that the game largely simulates well.

 

[Average Manatee]

I agree in principle but the balance is off. For military, MaA are way too powerful in comparison to levies and you only get levies from vassals. This means that military contributions of vassals is always basically zero, and all they do is contribute money to help you maintain your own MaA. But then the balance of income is off. Hiring a mediocre physician costs like 10 years worth of income from a duke that is perfectly loyal to you, same for hosting a feast or hiring a new MaA. Instead the only way to get decent income is stuff like ransoms. I know ransoms were a thing but I don't think kingdoms historically made 90% of their income ransoming nobles to each other.

 

[thesecret1]

You guys are thinking too deep about a meme generator. The goal is to generate hilarious events like a gay Pope cheating on you with the Caliph. The armies, provinces, money, etc. is just a minigame to give you something to do while the game sets up another funny scenario and was probably coded by interns in an evening.

 

[Axioms]

I agree in principle but the balance is off. For military, MaA are way too powerful in comparison to levies and you only get levies from vassals. This means that military contributions of vassals is always basically zero, and all they do is contribute money to help you maintain your own MaA. But then the balance of income is off. Hiring a mediocre physician costs like 10 years worth of income from a duke that is perfectly loyal to you, same for hosting a feast or hiring a new MaA. Instead the only way to get decent income is stuff like ransoms. I know ransoms were a thing but I don't think kingdoms historically made 90% of their income ransoming nobles to each other.

Right? The game actually simulates it terribly. Sure managing vassals was a pain in real life, but the social and political simulations of CK3 aren't deep enough to represent that, or the primary reasons, or the importance and depth of personal and familial relations.

Secret has it right, the game is just about fucking your daughter sister and gay popes. Now technically gay or pedophile popes is realistic, for some centuries of the period anyways, having big gay orgies, or non gay orgies too I guess at the Vatican. But the problem is the game *claims* to be more serious than that. Ah well, on to the next Cat-apult event.

 

[Minecrawler]

You guys are thinking too deep about a meme generator. The goal is to generate hilarious events like a gay Pope cheating on you with the Caliph. The armies, provinces, money, etc. is just a minigame to give you something to do while the game sets up another funny scenario and was probably coded by interns in an evening.

What's funny to me is how they claim they are much more serious and realistic than CKII, because they don't have satanists, supernatural powers and occasional talking horses.
Yet in reality CKII world felt significantly more medieval despite having all of those.
(Daily reminder that you can't take a loan from the Jews and kick them out anymore, but you can "promote Jewish sciences" and get great modifiers for that)

 

[DesolationStone]

Daily reminder that you can't take a loan from the Jews and kick them out anymore, but you can "promote Jewish sciences" and get great modifiers for that

Is there a mod to restore this?

 

[Minecrawler]

Is there a mod to restore this?

Most of those let you borrow from 'merchants' or templars or whatever
There is an old one that does precisely that, but hasn't been updated
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2217675803

Anyway, proper expulsion would require proper minority cultures mechanic, and pdx is unlikely to do that

 

[wwsd]

Is this shit any good yet after >3 years? Or will it be good when the new unlanded play (Crusader Kings: Bannerlord?) is out? I want something else than CK2 (AKA Holy Roman Blob All the Way to Mecca and Shit on the Kaaba Simulator), but am not yet willing to part with 50 eurobucks.

 

[Fedora Master]

You can safely assume any PDX game released after CK2 is utter garbage and will remain utter garbage.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

What makes CK2 better than CK3 at similar stages of development (ie don't compare CK2 with 30,000 DLCs to CK3 with 10,000 DLCs)?

 

[Average Manatee]

What makes CK2 better than CK3 at similar stages of development (ie don't compare CK2 with 30,000 DLCs to CK3 with 10,000 DLCs)?

Less control over your character traits and skills make for better gameplay. CK3 feels like a paint by numbers game with how you basically pick the same paths through the lifestyle ability trees. It also locks a lot of options that sensibly should exist for every character behind certain paths. Having randomness in things makes for more replayability and the feeling that you're actually strategizing on the fly rather than repeating the same circle of actions. This also applies to forging claims, which in CK2 is random but in CK3 is on a timer so you always know when you'll get a new one (and claims are one of the main ways to expand early as a vassal).

Tech made more sense. Your capital was the tech hub. In CK3 the way culture works the larger your culture the worse you tech because its based on the average development, which is completely backasswards. Spreading your culture actually screws you and you're best off diverging your culture and keeping it just in the capital. Imagine being the roman empire and going back to the stone age because you tried to romanize people. Also tech is capped based on hard game dates which is stupid, CK2 you could tech as far ahead as you want in any category. You paid a tech cost for getting it ahead of time but you could.

Military was less retarded. CK3 levies are stupidly worthless (and you only get levies from vassals, which makes vassals worthless) and you only care about them because the AI uses them to determine whether it has enough strength to revolt. Instead 95% of your power comes from choosing a single MaA and spamming it. The strength of your MaA is basically entirely disconnected from your realm, in CK2 you can be weakened on your levies after a hard war but in CK3 as long as you have money you have MaA because they reinforce very quickly as long as you pay them. This means wars are effectively two sides bashing their doomstacks against each other. Now granted this is the same thing in CK2 but its just more of a numbers game in CK3 due to how overpowering MaA work and how the only thing that limits them are money and tech. MaA also just spawn and despawn wherever in your realm you need them which makes the whole geography of the game feel empty and meaningless and contributes to the feeling that you're just enduring the sisyphean task of pushing the border ever further out.

CK3 is a lot more imbalanced when it comes to money. Let me just load into both games and check.

CK2 1066 Byz: 34g/month, hosting a feast costs 25 gold.
CK3 1066 Byz: 20g/month, hosting a feast costs 350 gold

Now CK3 will constantly prompt you to do shit like host feasts since that's where a lot of the RP of the game comes in. But it's a joke valuable proposition. In CK2 it was a reasonable cost for something that had a chance to give you a trait and make your vassals like you more. The CK3 implementation does have more stuff in it, but why would you ever spend 1.5 years of the empire's income on a feast? Every few years some retarded vassal who got 350g from lucky events will press the button and probably invite you. This doesn't just apply to feasting, there's like a dozen activities in CK3 that you'll never do

 

[thesecret1]

What makes CK2 better than CK3 at similar stages of development (ie don't compare CK2 with 30,000 DLCs to CK3 with 10,000 DLCs)?

Similar stages of development is a bit of a difficult metric. Should we compare by time since release, or by number of DLCs released? Because CK2 had assloads of DLCs out compared to CK3 in the same timespan (and the DLCs were better to boot).

Personally, despite having tried to get into CK3 multiple times, I always ended up thinking about how I'd much rather play CK2, and loaded into that instead. Not only does CK3 suffer from a myriad of game design issues (despite surprisingly competent technical execution of them), but there's also the issue of being unable to get immersed into the game. While CK2 already suffered from shit-tier humor and libturd sensibilities, it at least made the attempt to keep things somewhat in the setting. CK3 is just a memefest and, worse yet, its events even go so far as to arbitrarily made significant changes to the gameworld just to give you a "fun" issue to deal with (such as randomly making your friend lose all his lands, just so he can come to you for aid).

I like some of the things CK3 brought to the table, such as baronies being on the map (much, much better than holding slots in CK2) and punishing you for going against your character's personality with stress (so you have some consideration to make rather than always pressing the best option in any event that comes up, as was the case in CK2), but it's all just massively outweighed by the game overall being designed ineptly. "Good general idea, shit final design" would sum the game up quite well. And that's without getting into the issue of the game being fucking ugly between the trash "modern" UI and hideous 3D models.

It's all really unfortunate because CK2 wasn't a perfect game by any measure – on the contrary, it had a whole shitload of major issues. Yet here we are, CK2 still being the superior game.

 

[Axioms]

The biggest issue with CK3 is even the good features are really half-assed. Vassal contracts, Secrets, Travel, etc. They added them, sure, but they didn't take them anywhere.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

I think CKIII moved to the right direction, military-wise, but the MaA dependency and the lack of interplay between Military and the meat and potatoes of the game (Relationship between Nobility, Vassals and Subjects) makes it suck.

If I did it, we would have a "Master of Soldiers" position or something, who administers the Men-At-Arms. Or just make the Marshal do it. Hell, it could be a toggle (say, you don't want to make your marshal too strong)
Essentially, you need to keep the soldiers happy with you, and you need to keep the guy who runs the soldiery happy. If the guy who runs the soldiery sucks, the soldiery will be unhappy and might request to replace him or something (say, through your Commanders). If your soldiers and the Masters of Soldiers/Marshal are both unhappy, they might come with serious demands, or even attempt a coup. If both are happy, you get super-loyal force and perhaps even some neat bonuses.

Might even deliberately place someone the soldiers won't like in the position, so that he will never a chance to rally the soldiery.

Military Politics are VERY important for the time. Hell, "who runs my soldiers" is a pivotal decision for any ruler of the time, if not any ruler.

Making a huge MaA stack would suddenly be a lot more dangerous if your soldiery could swing their spears in the other direction.

I also think the way CK handles levies just sucks. AFAIK, before mass conscription, the biggest army ever assembled in Europe was around 170k frenchmen in the 1700s, and the King of France literally had to go up and down across the country to muster such numbers. A BIG issue in the Hundred Years War, was the fact that althrough theoretically, all these feudal lords owned allegiance to the King of France, a lot of them straight up didn't send troops when requested. You still just press a button and your levies teleport where you want. Boring.

 

[DesolationStone]

I also think the way CK handles levies just sucks. AFAIK, before mass conscription, the biggest army ever assembled in Europe was around 170k frenchmen in the 1700s, and the King of France literally had to go up and down across the country to muster such numbers. A BIG issue in the Hundred Years War, was the fact that althrough theoretically, all these feudal lords owned allegiance to the King of France, a lot of them straight up didn't send troops when requested. You still just press a button and your levies teleport where you want. Boring.

Yes, in CK2, armies only spawned in the province of their lords, so you had to manually regroup them in a province, and therefore the soldiers from the farthest provinces were vulnerable to enemy attacks. Also, with this solution you could see at a glance who the lords were who didn't support you.

 

[Space Satan]

I also think the way CK handles levies just sucks. AFAIK, before mass conscription, the biggest army ever assembled in Europe was around 170k frenchmen in the 1700s, and the King of France literally had to go up and down across the country to muster such numbers. A BIG issue in the Hundred Years War, was the fact that althrough theoretically, all these feudal lords owned allegiance to the King of France, a lot of them straight up didn't send troops when requested. You still just press a button and your levies teleport where you want. Boring.

Yes, in CK2, armies only spawned in the province of their lords, so you had to manually regroup them in a province, and therefore the soldiers from the farthest provinces were vulnerable to enemy attacks. Also, with this solution you could see at a glance who the lords were who didn't support you.

It was a rather historically accurade mechanic...and absolutely atrocious gameplay-wise. Gathering all those 20-30 men stacks was a constant pain.

 

[3 others]

What's MaA?

 

[Harthwain]

What's MaA?

Men-at-Arms.

 

[Average Manatee]

I also think the way CK handles levies just sucks. AFAIK, before mass conscription, the biggest army ever assembled in Europe was around 170k frenchmen in the 1700s, and the King of France literally had to go up and down across the country to muster such numbers. A BIG issue in the Hundred Years War, was the fact that althrough theoretically, all these feudal lords owned allegiance to the King of France, a lot of them straight up didn't send troops when requested. You still just press a button and your levies teleport where you want. Boring.

Yes, in CK2, armies only spawned in the province of their lords, so you had to manually regroup them in a province, and therefore the soldiers from the farthest provinces were vulnerable to enemy attacks. Also, with this solution you could see at a glance who the lords were who didn't support you.

It was a rather historically accurade mechanic...and absolutely atrocious gameplay-wise. Gathering all those 20-30 men stacks was a constant pain.

Later patches added rally points so you only had to manually manage islands (and could get around this by giving the vassal a capital on the mainland)

 

[AwesomeButton]

I've recently returned to playing the now-complete CKII and was wondering did CKIII ever pick up? Has it improved in balance and style, or is it the parody I remember from around release time. I see the DLC schedule hasn't been very busy, I don't know if this is a bad sign or a good one.

Edit: I think I answered this for myself by reading the above posts

CKII is such a fun game, I don't know why I've been staying away from it for so long. I got it for free with EUIV back in 2013, but I was morally against it because of the DLC spam, and I'm a bigger sucker for the Early Modern period than for Middle Ages. I've still played it pirated with DLCs for a couple of hundred hours, but that's been all for these 11 years.

 

[Axioms]

So the new DLC is eating shit in Steam reviews. I'm so happy.

 

[Fedora Master]

Poor Paradox just can't catch a break

Is it "Legends of the Dead?"
Because lmao how is any of this worth money

 

[AwesomeButton]

They took a conscious decision to emphasize the mundane parts of life, turning CK from a GSG about managing a dynasty into "medieval sims+". How many times can the same event aka "activity" transpire before it stops being interesting? I don't deny they look fun, and probably are fun the first time, when a new player is actually attached to his toons.

People keep fond memories and take ownership of stories that resulted from emergent gameplay. The aristocratic fun in CKII lies in being a careful rules lawyer who is ready to improvise on a theme, when the conditions arise from the environment of AI-controlled characters.

Like "that one time" when you were at war with the HRE and just then the king of Danemark offered you a marriage between his son and your third daughter which you previously, luckily, denied to someone else, and this came just in time for you to call Danemark into the war and with their 5000 troops plus some additional mercs you hired, you managed to win. How does something like this compare to "I got measles when I travelled to my uncle's county, lol".

I guess they are going for emergent gameplay that creates such stories to be remembered, but who is the target audience here really? Also, if you try to generate "emergent gameplay stories" every odd hour, they stop being memorable or remarkable.