Is CK3 just a barbie doll breeding simulator at this point? I feel like this game has been stripped of any sort of strategy that was present in CK2.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Is CK3 just a barbie doll breeding simulator at this point?
Yes, the new character focus trees destroyed all elements of strategy, randomness and role playing that made ck2 kino. Now you just click your focuses and wait 8 months to annex everyone in the world like hoi4. Eu4 also went down this path with missions trees. Paradox games are over and hoi4 is to blame
> Is CK3 just a barbie doll breeding simulator at this point?
You almost make it sound based
Hoi4 focus trees don’t force you to do anything, most of them just give you free stuff and help you grow, they don’t even really reward you for doing anything so, again, you can really just ignore them if you don’t like what they offer.
Never understood the hate against focus trees tbqh, especially in vanilla hoi4 where they’re usually so barebones they get finished quite early and only give you a bit of help to turn your shithole into something acceptable before WW2 starts
Focus trees railroad every game, it plays the same every time and murders creativity. Let's have an EU4 example going on: you are pre-trees Byzantium, you have options to fight the ottos, nocb east friesland to run away into HRE, nocb Ireland to run away to New World, nocb Granada and expand into northern Africa and Iberia from there. The dynamic missions will give you options to get some diplorep, colonists/growth or missionary strength based on your chosen path, call it emergent gameplay. Now in current reality if you do anything but fight the Ottomans your entire tree locks up. And you do it only in the order the game wants you to do it not based on any ingame reality (no cores/claims on Granada because one needs to conquer Greece>Asia Minor>Syria>Egypt>Africa in exactly that order first), now that's a railroad. HOI4 gets away with it because it's very short and linear, but even it oversteps any reason sometimes and there are countries that have to go through a linear visual novel every single playthrough.
>you do it only in the order the game wants you to do it not based on any ingame reality
That's the biggest problem. Many time especially past the early game mission trees in EU4 make no sense whatsoever becasue they are based on the real world history.
For example Portuguese missions force you to take over horn of Africa and some islands around Arabian peninsula to mimic Portuguese-Ottoman conflicts over trade. So far so good but the problem is a) in my game Ottomans never got those provincies and some of them were even controlled by allied nations, b) IRL Otto-Portuguese war happened far away from theri homelands, mainly on the sea, blockading ports and taking over lone fortresses in the middle of nowhere. But in the game being in the war with Ottos means their 100k stacks sieging Lisbon two weeks into the conflict.
Yes, the idea of Portuguese facing opponents because they divert the trade routes from India around Cape is correct but the game does it in a way that often makes no sense.
very well put and the major problem with PDX games
To be fair, isn't the problem with that less "focus trees" as a general concept and more Paradox making a single railroaded path for a focus tree? Like if the focus tree was several small separate sections, sometimes mutually exclusive, sometimes not, that would offer much more flexibility while still offering direction and flavor rewards.
True but that means that the rift between countries with and without focus trees is larger than life and that enables the endless region-pack conveyor Paradox has embraced. Focus trees are also very rigid, there is no responsiveness to gameplay (the longer the game the worse it gets), it's all predesigned and scripted, there are no/barely any systems. Say, you are France and there is a focus that gives you wargoals on Alsace and bonuses when you recover it. If you lose it later again (or any other part of your country) barely anything happens outside of some numbers going up and down. You may have abandoned colonies alltogether and fight for your life on the continent but the tree's next goal is still for some useless island in Indochina. Focus trees have to be generated on the fly based on player's input and the actual game going on.
That's a pretty good point. How do you think a dynamic focus tree would work? Imperator of all things seems like it had one where there were "regional" focus trees where anyone who met specific criteria could attempt them, but that's also limited. Maybe instead they're based off of national ideas/dynamic? ie, when a coalition pops up you get a focus tree around breaking the coalition that gives you bonuses if you successfully win a total victory against all of them/the most powerful members. Or if you're close to controlling a whole region you get a mission tree offering you differing methods for doing it.
You get it. The game shouldn't give you the same goals every time because maybe you are playing the Dutch that do not care about colonies and fight the French on land. So you get focuses to ally with those threatened by France, upgrade your forts bordering it, train the army, save up cash and ultimately win a war. And the beauty of it that every threatened country will have these systems, not just the one that the devs bothered to write a script for. AI will try uniting culture groups, regions, separate land masses, building up good trade goods. I think you need the ability to fail and own that too. Didn't build up the army after the lost war and rebels are running around torching the country? Too bad, the core you've lost is gone sooner so forget about getting it back cheap. It shouldn't nation ruin but a penalty should exist for not fulfilling the national ambition. Maybe that's too much but a man can dream.
I could swear there was a mod with this kind of thing.
Not taking exploration as the Dutch is moronic because thirdies are free real estate. Their missions suck, plain game mechanics says if your western euro in game in it’s hard to beat exploration.
The easy way to manage this type of system would be to make it both slightly random and with unlocks/preconditions. So there might be like 3-4 generalist trees that can apply to any country in X region/continent/etc. and each country gets maybe 1-2 specific ones with a random selection of 2-3 from that pool available at game start.
Then, the rest should be unlocked based on what you do in-game. So a Dutch that starts building forts along the French border would then unlock the anti-french national ambition. Tie this to some rng too, so maybe there are multiple ambitions with the same unlock or the game randomly selects parts of it. Like you build forts on the border and the ambition becomes targeting a nation that borders where you build the forts, but that might mean france/burgundy/etc. Or it might be build more forts, randomly picking which places.
Last category should be ambitions dependent on your neighbor's actions. If they build a ton of forts along the border maybe your ambitions becomes tearing down that wall and invading. If they aggressively expand, your ambition is to lead the coalition against them. These should be rng on whether they unlock or not, just because an aggressive neighbor exists doesn't mean your people want to coalition against them.
That would be a pretty good system.
It will probably never happen outside of mods though because paradox has realized they can mine the region pack thing forever.
>nocb east friesland to run away into HRE, nocb Ireland to run away to New World
oh shit I didn't even think about that
based lateral thinker
Thank you, but East Friesland is the standart escape route. It's not in HRE, so the Emperor doesn't come defending it. You declare asap, destroy it's army and just sit tight on 100% until Munster or whoever declares on it too because it lacks troops and allies. Vassalize EF, get into it's defensive war and you can now annex land around your vassal. Ireland hopping is what I planned to do when attempting the Trebizond 1000 dev run but figured I'd try staying first for sport.
Based fellow Trebizond Enjoyer (my one has the Nicaean COA though, because it's a custom Empire and the Nicaean COA made more sense lore-wise).
Speaking generally though, as much of a cop-out as it is, with these games where you're facing a limited AI, you have to force yourself to strategise by setting yourself limits. In the Komnenos run, for example, I quartered my demense size and only allowed myself to use personal levies (so no vassals), mercs and retinues for my wars. Additionally, if not pushing claims, I could only declare invasions (found a mod which adds that as a base CB) which only annexes what you siege down. Thus, the first few generations of my rulers had to constantly manage alliances with Armenian Cilicia, Georgia etc., and then declare wars against the Rum in which I would have to try to take as many of the well-developed castles of Anatolia (often guarded by 2k or more units) with just my levies and mercs, which meant I had to constantly manage my loans (feature of HIP). It was fun, very engaging, and allowed for some great roleplay.
Lorewise though it makes no fricking sense to call yourself trebizond. They’d absolutely have taken the title of Roman Empire once again, like Nicea did irl
No, not according to the lore in my game. You see, I started in 1204, and it took me a while to conquer most of Anatolia due to the difficulties I mentioned in the previous post (only being able to conquer a few counties at a time, or having to white peace before an unfavourable truce could lead to a pyrrhic victory at best). During that time, Epirus had taken Constantinople and restored the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, as a response, I decided it would make sense for me, then Basileus (King rank for the Byzantine successor states) of Trebizond, Armenia and Nicaea to declare myself as Roman Emperor of Trebizond, sort of as a rival claimant. Then, after another few generations, Epirus had declined so much that it imploded and was reduced to a Kingdom, I vassalised many of the breakaway duchies and eventually sieged down and conquered Constantinople.
At that point, I could not have restored the Byzantine Empire since I was already an Empire (weird HIP rule) and it would make no sense lorewise either. I had already claimed to be the rightful heir as a descendant of the Komnenoi. Additionally, the Empire I forged was highly centralised, far from the decentralised mess of the late Byzantine Empire, and due to my by now well-developed retinue and constant use of mercs, the nobility was no longer needed for military purposes. With this, I decided that this new Hellenic realm would stand on its own. Drawing inspiration from the Romans of old, but forging a new legacy. This BTW is somewhat historical, as in Nicaea for example, the idea of Hellenism was beginning to take form after the 4th crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Nicaea (scroll down to ideology and hellenism).
What a coincidence lmao, I'm doing something similar. This time I'm allowing myself to use levies, but still 1/4 demense. Also, the Byzantines flipped to Paulician and uprooted my Apostolic religion, so I have to defend myself on all sides.
Not just Trebizond, the region in general. And that is one big Trebizond and some challenges you've picked for yourself, I usually just chill, build up and manage tiny realms, set up eugenics programs. Here is the my current immortal georgian king, during the entire run most of the action I got into was because of defensive calls from romans.
What is the poitn of playing with immortal trait? It isn't enough that the game is already easy, you have to have an immortal ruler.
There isn't really. I did it for the bloodline and, well, the option was there. When the beat drops I'm going to kill myself.
>what a coincidence
A wild one. Hope you are treating my georgians well. Are Bagrationi still around?
To rule over eternity
>(found a mod which adds that as a base CB)
What mod?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=659294237
Sometimes the mod breaks, and the way to fix it is to go into the mods folder, and inside the zipped folder for the conquest mod you delete the descriptor.mod files
They are still alive yeah. They were Kings of Ayrarat until my current character's grandfather rolled up and kicked their shit in. Don't worry though, they King's descendant is a double duke, so there's no harm done 🙂
Why do so many CK2 mods look much better than CK3 vanilla?
hip looks fricking horrible if you ask me
CK3 is damn ugly, it's the major reason I didn't play it.
It is nice having characters that actually look different however
CK2 seemed like there was one male and one female face per ethnic group and the rest came from hairstyles
>CK2 seemed like there was one male and one female face per ethnic group and the rest came from hairstyles
wrong, portraits are composed of of multiple parts, cheeks, eyes, nose.
But I don't think there are many of them, I think were something like 6 eyes, 8 noses and 5 cheeks.
>wrong, portraits are composed of of multiple parts, cheeks, eyes, nose.
I know that's technically true, but the differences were miniscule as I remember it
They had an issue with the post-rendered portraits, they were made by a contractor called Crackentooth, and PDX had a falling out with him. He made the western portraits and Mongols faces, while all other portraits were made by random people. As it happens nobody was able to copy his style, so the vanilla faces never got expanded.
Which is pretty stupid, CK1 never had such an issue, their portraits are much more distinct.
2D portraits have more detail than the 3D blobs they got going on
also the (realm) map looks nicer
CK2 portraits got a big rework after Horse Lords. CK3 portraits might end up looking better in 4-5 years, if Paradox gets better 3D artists.
Also, the interface is just nicer. CK2's interface has a better style and is more informative, whereas CK3's interface feels more like a mobile game.
Yeah, I didn't even think of taking out an irish minor and then going for the new world. From a larp perspective that really appeals to me in the same way there are rumours that the templars went to america after friday 13th
My next playthrough was going to be golden horde into Europe but you might have inspired me with that Irish thing so thanks.
If you want Byzantine America roleplay try the Third Odyssey mod, it's a very in-depth mod pretty much entirely focused on Byzantine exodus with a ton of flavour for it.
>Now in current reality if you do anything but fight the Ottomans your entire tree locks up.
Good. Nations should feel unique
100% this. Couldn't have put it better myself
>Let's have an EU4 example going on: you are pre-trees Byzantium, you have options to fight the ottos, nocb east friesland to run away into HRE, nocb Ireland to run away to New World, nocb Granada and expand into northern Africa and Iberia from there.
But you can literally still do all of these things? The mission trees just give you another option, you don't have to do them.
If all the content in the game is behind making a particular choice, then I'd say you're kind of being railroaded into it, even if you can technically choose otherwise.
You have just as much content when going for nocb Ireland as you did before mission trees were added. Literally only new options were added, nothing has been taken away.
False. Where are my dynamic missions, Johan?
That's what estate diets are.
Because it rail roads you stupid Black person, yeah it doesn’t “force” you to do anything but it does force the ai to do the same exact thing every game, and it virtually forces you, “declare this easy war with these awesome claims and gain 200000000 development” you can’t really ignore that bro and if you do your playing wrong. I just miss the pure sandbox of eu4 and ck2
>I just miss the pure sandbox of eu4 and ck2
Imagine how hard they're going to frick up Victoria 3
Vicky 2 already essentially has focus trees via its decisions, they just aren't layed out for you. But for example literally everyone follows the exact same flowchart when forming Germany because that's how the decisions direct you.
>I just miss the pure sandbox of eu4 and ck2
You should've bought Imperator on release then. That game was pure sandbox without missions, focus trees and other videogame-ish cancer
It's hilarious how Paradox tapped into the mobage clicker audience and seemingly don't even realize it as they could've been making a much larger revenue developing actual full fledged phone games with all the resources they have.
This
>Crusader Kings: Mobile version
>limit setting to England (because normies only care about it)
>port CK3's models
>make battles tapping games
>add microtranstions
>make battles tapping games
How would that work
you tap dice rolls harder you tap higher rice rolls you get
>make battles tapping games
>How would that work
Or you could just import FGO's rpgesque battle system into it.
>Eu4 also went down this path with missions trees
I never understood this brainlet argument, EU has had missions for nations for a while, what EU4 does is expand on that.
Me neither, how is rewarding certain actions make it railroaded? You are still free to conquer China as Sweden and convert Beijing to Swedish culture
That’s way different from what we have now you dishonest israelite.
Long term planning, dealing with randomly getting a moronic son who’s vassals want to rape you now, all the chaotic shit required strategy to survive. Your army composition, the wars you declare at what time, managing vassals, managing foreign realms, ck2 is THE ONLY grand strategy game.
>dealing with randomly getting a moronic son who’s vassals want to rape you now
No, stats don't really matter, they minor modifiers. And vassals don't care about stats when joining faction, they always depose the current ruler no matter what stats because of static opinion modifers like "short reign".
If anything vassals should want a weak incompetent ruler that they want to get to boss around, not a strong genius chad. Historically vassals were always about self-interest which rarely aligned with the interest of the realm.
>the wars you declare at what time
Yes, check if that guy 50% fewer troops than me to attack, very strategic.
>managing vassals
There is no dealing with them, your only interaction is the ultimatum they send you randomly. In contrast, historically vassals have to acknowledge their liege lord and pay inheritance tax, can't have have that.
>managing foreign realms
Your only interactions are "declare war" and "arrange marriage".
Stats are fricking everything, man. Your councilors can only do so much.
If anything vassals should want a weak incompetent ruler that they want to get to boss around, not a strong genius chad. Historically vassals were always about self-interest which rarely aligned with the interest of the realm.
Actually, it really depended because the king at the end of the day was the one that could raise an army to defend anyone invading that lord's lands. And vassals more often than not just want somebody they like on the throne.
>Yes, check if that guy 50% fewer troops than me to attack, very strategic.
just like in real life
>There is no dealing with them, your only interaction is the ultimatum they send you randomly. In contrast, historically vassals have to acknowledge their liege lord and pay inheritance tax, can't have have that.
Huh? You can befriend them, revoke their lands, kill them, spy on them, raise their children, and make enemies of them to provoke them into 'self-defense'
>Your only interactions are "declare war" and "arrange marriage".
your forgetting marriage alliances and killing them
>Actually
Just curious, how many books on medieval warfare have you read? Because I have read a few.
>king at the end of the day was the one that could raise an army to defend anyone invading that lord's lands
Why do you think that?
>just like in real life
No, just no...
>Huh? You can
Half of those are plots not character interactions and I don't consider them meaningful.
>Just curious, how many books on medieval warfare have you read? Because I have read a few.
curious how you haven't named them and think medieval warfare counts as liege/vassal dynamics/politics
>Why do you think that?
King at the end of the day is the one with the treasury, authority, and army. If he lacked any of that, he'd quickly cease being king.
>No, just no
oh please, numbers was incredibly important during a time where the common soldier was unprofessional by today's standards
tactics only work if you had a way of communicating them effectively and a force that could actually listen to you
>Half of those are plots not character interactions and I don't consider them meaningful.
how often do you think a liege met with their vassals directly?
>tactics only work if you had a way of communicating them effectively and a force that could actually listen to you
i love playing warband and being able to command my army from the other side of the map
>curious how you haven't named them
Bit on the older side but, Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300, at the moment I'm reading "Medieval Warfare: A History".
>think medieval warfare counts as liege/vassal dynamics/politics
Well, it absolutely does when the entire society revolves around "men who fight".
>treasury
Many lords were richer than the king because most lords didn't pay regular taxes to their liege
>authority, and army
very early concept, lordlings fought constant wars with no say from their liege. I.e. the Anglo-Normans conquered half of Ireland independently.
>oh please
The point was that you wouldn't be able to know many troops the enemy could muster given any time. In many cases, you wouldn't even know the proper numbers before a battle.
>how often do you think a liege met with their vassals directly?
One or two times a year, kings would move their courts around the kingdom and visit vassals.
>Bit on the older side but, Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300, at the moment I'm reading "Medieval Warfare: A History".
Cool.
>Well, it absolutely does when the entire society revolves around "men who fight".
Cope.
>Many lords were richer than the king because most lords didn't pay regular taxes to their liege
They favored levies over wealth just as CK does it, right?
>very early concept, lordlings fought constant wars with no say from their liege. I.e. the Anglo-Normans conquered half of Ireland independently.
Not what I meant. That's more of a different kingdom type of thing, seeing as how feudalism wasn't so cut and dry as we see in vidya.
>The point was that you wouldn't be able to know many troops the enemy could muster given any time. In many cases, you wouldn't even know the proper numbers before a battle.
If that was your point, you should've said it in place of 'No, just no.'
>One or two times a year, kings would move their courts around the kingdom and visit vassals.
Cool. Good to know actually.
>They favored levies over wealth just as CK does it, right?
Just no, levies were auxiliary units and not armies into themself.
>If that was your point
I thought it was evident
There is a difference between actual personality and rumors, ultimately you can't know what is true. I mean nobody wants to be known as a coward, but by making coward trait public knowledge it impacts character interactions.
And to add on to tactics, the big historical big brain moves were either luck brought about by the opposing army's stupidity or that detachment of soldiers noticing something off and moving in to prevent it from happening.
>big historical big brain moves were either luck brought about by the opposing army's stupidity
That is hardly luck. When Hannibal encircled at Cannae he was taking advantage of some stupidity but he needed to be very clever in doing so, properly setting his opponent up to be the stupid one and make those stupid choices, it was hardly luck. The art of war is the art of deception.
But tactics should not be of enormous importance in Grand Strategy, which is far removed from those small tactical machination and maneuvers. Longer term things like Fabian’s tactics feeding a longer term and successful war strategy are of greater importance, and Hannibal’s failure regarding his strategy of converting Roman allies and capitalizing on his successes to convince his masters back home to give him the support needed to win the greater war. And such a war was just a segment of the rival civilizations grand strategies, though an important one.
>The art of war is the art of deception
that's modern war
No, it has been known for millennia. Even Sun Tzu's famous Art of War explains it, alongside other things. When translated from ching chongs, it is something like
>All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
>pointless little nitpicks lol
>w-why isn’t a video game EXACTLY like real life… WHY THE FRICK DO I ONLY HAVE 13 INTERAXTION OPTIONS WITH MY VASSALS INSTEAD OF INFINITE SAVE ME Black personMAN IM GOING FRICKING INSAAAAAAANE
>Long term planning, dealing with randomly getting a moronic son who’s vassals want to rape you now, all the chaotic shit required strategy to survive. Your army composition, the wars you declare at what time, managing vassals, managing foreign realms, ck2 is THE ONLY grand strategy game.
You sound like someone who sucks giga wiener at the game. CK2 is actual baby's first map painter and you can cheese just about every war by shock siege assaulting with mercs
>Paradox games are over and hoi4 is to blame
It's 100% because of the EU4 model which gave a simplistic mana approach mixed with totally purposeless dice rolls to under gird literally everything else about the game. There's literally purpose to events in that game, just random bullshittery that lowers or raises a number at some random point. Everything in EU4 operates on this bullshit tripartite principle. 3 major stat points, ~3 allies, ~3 rivals, +3 or -3 stability. Pure abstraction. One switch moves another. At a certain point, it feels like I'm playing a very protracted and complicated game of Pong.
Paradox games are paradoxically not fun as "games," in the sense that people enjoy scrabble or yahtzee. People have always enjoyed their games for role-playing mixed with some Machiavellian zaniness, and strategy that involves pretending you're not just gaming the system.
Crusader Kings, Vic2, and even Stellaris have thankfully gotten away from this by making things more about role-playing
fricking hate perk tree
normies look at sandbox, think 'oh what do I do there is no goal!!!' they need a goal focus tree perk tree
Gambling female CEO say make money DLC easy package sell regional perk tree focus tree mission tree pump out. mayhap why 3d royal court?
stupid zoomer and youtube, unsophisticated, wackiness not realism.
performance when game should have as much complexity to make speed 3-4 range fun instead. perk tree easier compute than living world?
can't explain why, but game doesn't feel alive, breathing. many cases of simplicity where complexity should be.
depressed when you realize that even CK2 is above capacity for many normies and barely passing it for others. HOI4 youtube divison googling tards think they smart for doing focus tree and googling division.
frick mission tree frick focus tree frick perk tree normie moron 'oooooooh how can i play if i don't am told to do???'
imagine minecraft with focus tree perk tree hahahaha
minecraft also had difficulty problem, streamlining game away makes less fun. difficulty as engagement
streamline mechanics streamline the game away. CK2 part fun was roleplaying improvement of character tied to gameworld and event, now that streamlined away to perk tree.
grand strategy games should be designed only for 110+ IQ people with unmoronic attention span
or maybe i just got bored of these games
>grand strategy games should be designed only for 110+ IQ people with unmoronic attention span
Agreed!
That's why we need open source games. Commercial games can't work since they are designed for 80-90iq audience, that's where the volume and money is
>That's why we need open source games.
We really need an SS14 like GSG project
>depressed when you realize that even CK2 is above capacity for many normies
I'm deepressed english is beyond your capacity.
>t. CK2 crybaby thinking he's a big-brainiac due to playing CK2
lol
lmao
That game was literally how PDX went from a strategy game dev to casual shovelware dev. Nice you've made it clear you arrived after that event already happened
Drunk, ESL or bot I cannot tell.
Why the frick would you play one of these games if not for focus trees? To stare at a blob on a map? That's fun to you?
>why would you play minecraft if you don't have something to tell you exactly what goals to pursue
> That's fun to you?
yes, i like staring and interacting with maps for hours
I've said this in like 20 threads and no one replies so I assume I'm the only one who does it.
I play it as an ethnicity creator. There's mechanics that let you diverge and merge cultures to set your own combos of fashion and language. Genetics is simulated so you can race-mix to get your descendants to look the way you want. You can change the flag and map color of your country. It's basically make-your-own-race that's not sci-fi, no other game lets me do that.
OP here. Yea I do play it for the race making only because that's all it's good for.. I'm hoping one day CK3 will be a strategy game that is character-based. Not just I told everyone over with no challenge. I think CK2 had defensive pacts. While CK3 don't. Small things like these make CK3 a breeding Sim only. the devs seem more focused on adding a useless 3D court that gives repetitive events so I'm not happy with its development.
Maybe they will add a sex minigame in the next DLC hopefully. Would really top off the race mixing.
>Maybe they will add a sex minigame
oh nonono
oh yes
W
>press S to slap her asscheeks
>I think CK2 had defensive pacts
absolute garbage that was introduced later in development from EU4. you had the pope allying himself with muslims and shit like that. it's not only a shit mechanic, but also it's not even historically accurate
It'd just be nice if you could actually spread that ethnicity, especially if you merge two smaller cultures.
I play Muse of Ambition, with the goal of making a weak (usually a count) ruler into a powerful king. Because I only have lifetime before character switch happens it it is tricky, and dragging one war too might cost everything.
I want games where the future is not predictable and is like a open ended book. Focus trees take that away.
I hate Hoi4 Focus tree too
but I dont think its that bad in CK3
its just simple buff
CK2 was mediocre.
HoI4 is just a sympton, the real problem is that modern paradox is squarely against player not having complete internal control over their country/realm/character, even if it makes no sense.
It's most jarring in Victoria 3, since it's predecessor gave unusualy little control to the player compared to other strategy games.
Essentially, they have been turning their games from historical simulations to scaled-up city builders.
That's because their games are aimed where the money is: drooling adhd morons that like to click buttons and get instant gratification
No, the problem is pandering to traditional strategy fans who came in from Civilization and city-builder games and expect the same experience scaled-up.
It's not even a real city builder, and the same problem applies to city builders
Look at new content introduced by Cities Skylines mods and DLC, is there new mechanics and fixes/balances to existing mechanics? No, it's mostly the ploppable assents. The target audience (drooling adhd morons) doesn't care about real city builder where you act as a major and decide on zoning and city policies, they just want to paint the map with custom buildings, while the game will provide external source of incoming people and surplus budget no matter what they do
Imo the real problem is pandering to meme homosexuals and map painters. Objectives in their game should be relative to the country, and not just gravitate towards the usual map painter reform the roman empire utter unredeemable bullshit.
They should hire real historians amd economists to help build a real historical game.
Samegay here. I forgot to say they are also pandering to hamster brained children and manchildren, thus the games need to be easier and easier to reach an even broader audience of 60 IQ brainlets.
>Objectives in their game should be relative to the country
Within reason, if I want to build my Irish emirate the game shouldn't be locked down so hard that I can't go out of my way to breach historical norms to do so
>Is CK3 just a barbie doll breeding simulator
Yes.
>at this point
Alway was.
I think they realised halfway through the development of CK2 that 'medieval sims' was a bigger seller than 'medieval grand strategy'.
I don't mind it.
>implying CK2 was a strategy
lol
lmao
The biggest joke is that it was the floodgate that brought normalgays to PDX and the key reason everything got dumbed down to just dress-up dolls and light novels, but the same normalgays brought by it insist they are the "true gamers" of the "old PDX"
This is the correct assessment. I ignored CK2 for the most part becasue of the childish memes, then eventually got around to playing it just to give it a fair go. I half expected it to be some brain dead shit for casual morons, but nothing prepared me for its sheer level of moronic arse frickery. I binned it, content that at least I had seen for myself the other side of paradox cuckery. Namely the embarrassing cringe fantasy of CK2, a game fit only for children and subhumans.
CK was this since CK1, anyone claiming otherwise either didn't play it, or is in deep denial.
I hate this game so much, it is like the embodiment of wasted potential and some interesting ideas executed poorly.
I have read quite a few books about the struggles of the medieval king and how they toiled to assert their authority, everything was so intricate that even putting together an army of any size was an accomplishment, alone being able to maneuver it, win a battle and accomplish strategic objective before the winter. But no can't have that, in CK3 assembling a death stack is easy, every war is a total war and on average last five years and every siege takes six months.
Learning to place trust in the right people was also very intricate in order to assert any level of authority... But nope, can't have that either, because you are an omniscient being who knows everybody's personality.
an easy fix would b to make traits hidden, with your character only discovering them in other people over time if he or she is smart, and in him or herself over time if they are smart or capable of introspection.
you'd have to use guesswork and make some errors of judgment, which would make thinsg fun.
min-maxing a character based on perfect info is for skinner box autists.
Eh, I don't see the big deal of personality traits being common knowledge as a ruler yourself. Seems like the type of thing your spymaster would inform you about or you'd know from politicking around. Figuring shit out is more of a wandering mercenary band type of thing exactly like Warband does it.
i think it's central to court intrigue and politics, and human interaction in general.
for example: you might put someone in charge of something because they seem switched on, but you find out only too late that they're an incompetent boob who fricks up, but unfortunately they;re too well connected to remove easily without causing problems.
to facilitate this, you could have an interaction/plot to cultivate an image for yourself (e.g. seeming smart, or seeming warlike) which takes people in, with greater success for people who are dumb, naive or who don't know you. this will increase your chances of being picked for certain jobs or roles.
obviously, all characters will be able to do this, so your role as ruler will be to pick from a selection of people who may seem like they have an aptitude for the thing you want done, but you have to seperate out the incompetent dilletantes from the actually competent people. if you've surrounded yourself with incompent dilletantes, this becaomes harder because their judgment is poor as well (if you choose to implement a 'seek recommendations from courtiers' interaction)
countries have fallen because moronic rulers have surrounded themselves with equally moronic flunkies and theyr have steered the ship of state full speed ahead to the reef of ruin
ah, just like america
>Just no, levies were auxiliary units and not armies into themself.
i meant levied soldiers from other lords' retinues/private armies
>I thought it was evident
it was not
>There is a difference between actual personality and rumors, ultimately you can't know what is true. I mean nobody wants to be known as a coward, but by making coward trait public knowledge it impacts character interactions.
presumably the people you rule over would know depending on your decisions and how you carry yourself
like, there is a limit to how much you can fake
an idiot can't fake being a smart person just as a coward cannot fake being brave
>an idiot can't fake being a smart person just as a coward cannot fake being brave
they can to a dumb (or naive) person, and a feature of dumb people is they don't know they're dumb, so you have increased success against people with these traits (whether they know they have them or don't - dumb people tend not to be self aware).
if you have a ruler who is dumb, they will be endlessly taken in by such people, which is a big problem.
this is why i execute the moronic who are not my vassals
I can think of a few ways to counter this issue off the top of my head.
1. people with a trait are better at recognizing it in others and prioritize those people for advice, meaning once you've been saddled with one incompetent boob you just need to see who they recommend and avoid those people.
2. Once you find one person with a particular trait, your current ruler is now permanently slightly better at recognizing it in others, same is true of advisors so even incompetent boobs get more useful over time. This reduces the likelihood of getting a bad king and perpetually getting bad advisors. If they live long enough, they will eventually start to wise up.
3. Each new ruler offers the chance to do a hard reset, firing all advisors so a player can't get permanently stuck in a spiral. This is probably ahistorical, but I think it gives an out that the game might need to stay fun.
4. Traits could be set on a grid, and the ability to recognize them dependent to some degree on how far apart they are on the grid. So if greedy + cruel are close together then a greedy king will recognize cruel advisors more frequently. This means bad traits aren't quite so bad for a king to have, since it makes it easier to surround yourself with good people, and you can keep the whole idiot king can't distinguish between idiots and smart people thing just by making smart and stupid far apart on the grid.
That is an interesting idea, where you’d need to use your spymaster, plots or other interactions to learn more about characters traits.
One alternative would be to remove the absolutes of how traits impact AI personality. So instead of Brave being a +200 to boldness, it might be a range from 50 to 200, so all brave characters are not equally brave. Another someone mentioned would be to make Traits depend on personality rather than personality depend on traits. In s similar was the game hints at the characters highest personality with a nickname “X the evil atheist”, traits might be something that only shows the highest modifiers while leaving others still randomized but hidden.
That would probably take way too much code and processing intensity though. The idea of having traits be like Secrets that need to be learned would probably be much easier to code in the games existing framework. Though I suppose word would get around pretty quickly if someone is a drunk or shy, since it would be less hidden than being an incestuous cannibal.
>every war is a total war
What are you on? This might hold true in EU4, but in CK3 I've fought any number of wars where fighting was mostly limited to the provinces in contention, and sometime not even all of those (especially if you get a few good quality prisoners).
It is still total war.
Ideally, you would get 100% warscore from occupying the war goal, but it only gives you like 10%, so your choices are:
>a) wait for 5 years for warscore to slowly tick to 100%
>b) occupy provinces outside of the wargoal and wipe out any armies you see
Additionally, the wars continue non-stop, and there are no campaign seasons (armies tend to retreat or winter after accomplishing certain objectives)
I can argue it is more localized, but not by a significant margin.
Wars would be over in a few months between empires if objectives were 100% warscore, especially if it's just a county they you can snipe while his army is on the other side of his realm. If you can occupy both the holding and crush his capability to resist, then warscore would shoot to 100.
Not really, slow army movements and sieges make everything last for months.
Regardless, why would it even be a problem? Truces are one-sided, so if you blitzkrieg a county and get 100% warscore, before the enemy has been able to mobilize, there is nothing stopping them from declaring a new war to retaking the county, it would only depend on the defender's ability to preven it from happening.
Wars of CK don't really depict wars as much they seem to be designed around campaigns with a simple goal, which they fricked up by making them go for five even if that goal has been met.
It would be both historical (Byzantine Empire constantly got bits of it chewed off before it was able to do anything) and better for the gameplay (because Byzantine Empire wouldn't be able just to send 50K troops to Ireland to defend a single county)
change warscore from wargoal in game's settings (defines file in game folder)
what fricking strategy was present in ck2? why are people acting like ck2 was strategical or something
Terrain and army composition, I guess.
and marriage alliances
You need to strategically help your son frick his wife so that the succession is secure. Otherwise the game is just maneuvers baiting enemies into crossing rivers.
just like in real life
At least it's a better Sims Medieval than Sims Medieval was.
Sims medieval was unironically more fun and also harder than this shitty game
I played CK before CK2 came out and all the CK games stayed true to the original design concept, that being a character driven strategy game.
>I played CK before CK2 came out and all the CK games stayed true to the original design concept, that being a character driven strategy game.
This is the actual truth, which anyone who played the original would know, however anons complain about vidya they don't even play. It was clear from the beginning what PDX was going for with the franchise and CK3 is clearly one version of that.
The real problem is the lack of immersion. Ironically they managed to managed to completely kill it by focusing on le "rpg mechanics" and making it gamey af
This is the biggest one.
What about building castles? Leading armies? Travel time? Why is the economy a bunch of modifiers? Why no population numbers, not even as abstraction?
Games like Knights of Honor and Medieval 2 managed it, so how can Paradox fail entirely to build a believable world in their third attempt?
Real question: who good/bad are the CK3 porn mods RN? I'm waiting for decent ones to pirate it.
How can people fap to these ugly 3d models the game has ?
They can't. That's why he's asking for mods.
you don't understand gay it's easier to jerk it if there's a story involved
if that story happens to involve forcing my own daughters into concubinage well it's an itch only scratched by this and eragames
The current sex mods are kinda janky
character body overhaul on loverslab and its associated mods are the only ones worth checking out right now
Abandonware that never really got anywhere because the game is boring and none of the lewd modders are motivated to make mods for games they no longer play.
I could fap to ck2, it's more of a cerebral thing. Though at the moment there really isn't any more to it than what you say because mods are press button to see nakey an say dey habd the sex.
CK3 is not abandonware, the devs are just taking a well-earned summer off from doing work on the game
I meant the lewd modding scene, there hasn't been so much as a meangful update, let alone a new mod, in the last year.
Paradox did get too greedy with stringing along people with nothing dlcs, though. People aren't going to stick it out through 5 flavor packs when the base game is itself nothing.
>ck2
>strategy
Im just sayin ck2 had alot more elements to manage. Council from Conclave is dumbed down.
I wanted CK3 to be more than a funny breeding sim. I guess we will never get that.
>Im just sayin ck2 had alot more elements to manage.
More istn't automatically better, especially if it's just mindless busywork that adds nothing.
Also they are adding improved mechanics (that sucked or were just meh, but are actually good now) from the previous game over time.
ok, PPP, whatever.
>PPP
Whatever that is.
Potential Penises Peddler
Incel contrarian thread
The only thing worse than a contrarian is a double contrarian who thinks he's cool for having the mainstream opinion
Always has been about roleplay, events and RPG mechanics, strategy doesn't exist in CK.
And that's why it's really fun, if I wanted strategy I wouldn't be playing a game which tells me that the pope can be gay and seduced for me to have absolute power over the christian world, but that was extremly fun to pull off.
I wish, there arent even any good sex mods for CK3 atm.
Nothing as kino as tentacled dreams mod for CK2
>CK3 is bad because there are slightly fewer RNG game-overs than it's predecessor
>game over
>not having an heir
moron
Alright, about to start another game of this - what mods do I need?
2 or 3? HIP for 2, Sinews of war for 3 and then whatever your heart desires in the doll department (pretty girls, wardrobe posing feature, etc).
The models are far too ugly for that.
CK3 is more /vrpg/ than /vst/
If anything you proved his point. CK3 models are so very boring, I don't in general feel any attraction toward 3D models, but I do feel some for 2D art, I don't know I prefer even poor 2D porn over any 3D art when I see 3D porn games it looks like clashing two action figures together.
Have you considered that you're moronic and can't rotate shapes in your mind?
yes I can't draw
actually I like your caricature anon, definitely managed to capture the CK3 character "look"
I like how the original screenshot got jannied but my drawing isn't considered NSFW. Personally, it has been a dream of mine to draw something original that jannies consider NSFW, oh how I tried.
Also, I don't get why people CK3 portraits these "realistic", just aren't. They might be less mobile gamy than your run-of-the-mill mobile game, but still a far cry. I don't necessarily think stylized art is a bad thing, art is just an abstraction after all, but CK3 art is in the awkward intersection of realistic and stylized. Ultimately I just wish they went back to CK1 portraits.
>Ultimately I just wish they went back to CK1 portraits
Yeah the CK1 portraits were great, very distinctive you could never confuse one ruler for another. Having the full body is nice though in CK3
See what I mean. Funny naked breeding simulator. Woo hoo!
I don't mind the models but I really think the poses could have been done better, along with the events themselves. CK3 lacks seriousness.
gsgs are boring. so much waiting. turn based games i have stuff to do every turn. meanwhile in paracuck
>plot to kill
>wait
>war against enemy blob
>wait for treaty to expire / levies to refill
god forbid you end up with a regency
if you don't get erection just from looking at maps and how they change with years, then gsgs are simply not for you
yes and I love every second of it
I wonder if the kiddies realize that transitioning to soijack spam is admitting that they made you mad.
>strategy that was present in CK2
no such thing
>CK2
>strategy
lol hate CK3 if you want but dont pretend that CK2 was all about strategy
Are you the same Black folk or szchio who can keep parroting Vic 2 le bad so Vic 3 le good!
This was better than CK3 battle. One of the many features watered down.
nice projection there, take your meds
anyway, yes ck3 combat is super shallow but this is something that isnt super essential to be improved immediately
>muh dicerolls
It was interesting in theory, but you had little control over it unless you were some autistic minmaxer.
>Loses because your generals became craven in the middle of the battle.
wow just like that time Darius III became craven in the battle of Gaugamela leaving the rest of the army in disorder despite outnumbering Alexandee 1:2
True, Paratards completly killed battles in CK3, making worst battle sistem of all they game (until Vic3 release). It's just full and total downgrade compared to CK2 battles beside couple small details.
Any good rape mods using the animation rigs yet?
No. They're all janky and shit.
Why do these frickers glow like the sun before they even detonate? In Voyager when they beam one onto a borg ship, it doesn't glow before it detonates... It must be a result of propulsion then, yes? Is this ever explained?
It's a little something called "special effects".
Does ck3 force you to use 3d models for every scene ?
Just did a fresh ck3 run after 1 year of not touching the game. Even with like 30 mods I didn't notice any change from the usual formula of 'wait for X thing to cooldown so you can do Y'. Still waiting forever to build up my buildings, still waiting for truces to end, still skipping through the boring inconsequential events that give either +5 piety or +10 prestige. The Iberian struggle mechanic is so bad, they just randomly decide to cut you off from declaring war / getting more than one county at a time. Funny how during this 'conciliation' phase a Crusade was triggered and I could just switch target to a kingdom in Spain and get half of the land anyways.
>'wait for X thing to cooldown so you can do Y'
They don't even consider this a problem, it is simply part of the gamedesign. One ruler cannot be allowed to reconquer Alexander's Empire (you are limited to one king-tier invasion per lifetime).
Because everything has to be paddled, for the game does not have actual gameplay.
What are your favourite mods?
Mostly looking for stuff that make religions/cultures more unique and give them new events/decisions/flavour.
Prince of Darkness
It's not balanced, is it?
Neither is base game.
>Check it out, I'm made of gold!
>t. Emperor Sanyo
Godhead, motherfricker.
Indeed gold is very valuable commodity
>Marco look, I've turned myself into a statue Marco!
>I'm Statue Sanyo!
CFP/EPE + BookmarksPlus
Already have those and having fun with my Socotra palythrough.
Although CFP only adds content for a few select cultures/peoples/regions.
Are super dukes still viable? I haven't tried consolidating everything under one yet, but all my vassals keep destroying extra duchy titles I give them. Makes me worry that might put a wrench in the strategy and wreck my empire if I try it (or at least devolve the game into an endless gold-to-prestige farm).
How do you even culture blob anymore your vassals won't convert their counties culture unless they meet like 8 different requirements.
what are those requirements tho
I was able to figure out, through Discord sleuthing, that they think that culture conversion is genocide, so it's been made basically impossible for the A.I. to do. They've made exceptions for the English Isles and it's cultures under certain conditions, the Iberian struggle, and cultural hybridizing, but things like converting Mashriqi to French is wrongthink, and no, you won't get a gamerule to change it back. Sadly, this makes the opposite also impossible, as well as huge monocultures diverging into smaller ones ala the collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm unsure of the A.I.'s logic for hybridizing as well.
Instead, the current strategy is raising cultural acceptance and having a multicultural empire rather than a monocultural one. Religion blobbing is still possible, but it's equally as unrealistic and practically violent as mass culture conversion. They're never going to have a genocide/forced conversion feature either. Technology is also tied to cultures with high development provinces so the game actively rewards having a smaller culture rather than a sprawling one.
The culture hybridizing/diverging thing is yet another "nice idea, terrible execution" by paradox. Within 50 years, France seems to splinter into about 20 different cultures if you have hybrid cultures set as anything more than the lowest amount, and after just 100 years the world becomes an unrecognizable mess. The fact that it also came with a host of things to make cultural conversion tougher is just the icing on the cake. And so, this becomes yet another example of the ck3 devs showing a complete lack of interest for the actual period and are more focused on "what are some cool new mechanics we can add in this cute little sims game for our players to make youtube videos out of?"
>France seems to splinter into about 20 different cultures
I have hybridization on the default setting, and I don't see this happening much. I could be wrong though.
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely in love with hybridization, it's just that it's absolutely broken and you can't convert provinces anymore. How am I supposed to blob with hybrid culture either? I don't know if it was there at the start of CK3 but I distinctly remember different cultured provinces having some sort of debuff in CK2 too.
Even faster culture conversion speed doesn't make a difference. Wow, with the ten years it takes to convert a single province it'll just take 150 years to convert a small kingdoms worth of counties (30), instead of 300, more than half of the games time.
At least playing tall is still viable. Doing nothing through parking your steward on your capital to increase development, clicking upgrade building, and doing the learning lifestyle generation after generation on speed 5 is super fun.
Maybe I'm just cynical but I've been thinking recently that the court itself was just youtube bait too.
>Maybe I'm just cynical but I've been thinking recently that the court itself was just youtube bait too.
Do you mean the DLC as a whole or specifically the court bit, because I don't think 'click to get a few shit events' would work as youtube bait. The cultural hybridization mechanic is definitely youtube bait though.
Post more hot medieval b***hes.
She needs to convert to a nudist religion. Now.
true i just breed cursed things
Yes and paradox has already abandoned it, once vic3 comes out they will forget about it completely much like how imperator -> ck3 went
Absolute state of the Orthodox fate.
Ok.
That map is basically end times tier. How did you let things get so bad?
>Get new wife.
>Gets tuberculosis and dies.
Help.
I played as some shitty count and when I finally got a little bit of control over my area I got continuously fricked by pagan pacts and civil war.
Here's the world.
I find that all my recent 769 games are a coinflip between the HRE absorbing all the Catholic realms before dabbing on everyone and the Umayyads and Abbasids surviving until the end of the game and blobbing everywhere. I remember before the millions of nerfs to Byzantium they'd be an actual worry but now I kind of root for them each game because they always get beaten up pretty bad.
I don't understand how they are so stable, they never seen to have civil wars, or even fight each other.
If defensive pacts are turned off then the HRE only ever has to worry about the Emperor actually dragging himself to a crowning ceremony. In my current game they nearly recreated the Roman Empire but because the Emperor simply just decided not to get crowned the HRE exploded into a massive civil war. With defensive pacts on Muslim empires tend to rack up a lot of decadence but even then they are still pretty stable. Open succession plus Iqta government is insane, even the AI is smart enough to just build random temple holdings and hand them out to dynasty members and friendly counts, combined with Sayyid and Hajj the Muslim AI has to really mess up or be unlucky enough to exist in a mega HRE timeline to fail.
you know this world comes very close of not looking like absolute gore like most CK maps, it just ruined by Lithuanian and Swedish exclaves
Heh, is that all you have?
Apparently at some point a greek adventurer invaded India and turned it Orthodox.
Based autist
Time to take up the cross my man
I would but I stand no chance, even with decadence over 60 % nothing ever happens.
RIP
>Emperor finds woman he loves
>She gets Cancer
Well now.
Use magic to cure her, duh. Pretty historical.
>Wife died of cancer before giving birth.
Bros...
Perfect, she'll die before she gets old, and then you can marry a fresh 16 year old flower
Just like my japanese anime
Always a riot when this happens.
STAKE
What are the odds that the Royal Court DLC/expansion will go on sale? It doesn't seem to get any and in fact only increased in price, thanks Paradox israelite.
The umayyads have imploded boys.
We're eating good tonight.
I didn't do anything.
What do you get out of this game? you are clearly the strongest, why would you continue playing? what is there to do but to blob with ease?
I just play the game?
I enjoy fricking around in a medieval setting and watching the world develop.
Pic related, my king just made friends with the grandmaster of the knights hospitalier while he was going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
I just think it's neat.
>watching the world develop
I have personally spent more time in CK2's observation mode than actually playing the game, because the gameplay itself is rather dull
Islamic France exploded after I BTFO their invasion forces.
good shit, keep us updated on this playthrough, I'm invested
Currently I'm waiting for my threat to go down because everyone is out to get me. I'm trying to make an alliance with England and share France with them.
Under the teachings of Jesus Christ the Indians have started to reconquer their peninsula from the arabs.
Good on ya Apu.
Can you show the world religion map
Why is this even an option.
Better question - why are you meeting in your bed chamber? Seems an odd place to brodown when you have an entire palace worth of rooms to choose from
I wonder how my wife which I love so much feels about this and the numerous bastards I acknowledged as mine.
People who are in love cannot be expected to act rationally.
I remember that before I got banned I saw a "trad" girl on twitter have a onions jack moment of "omg this is so heckin epic I'm a strong pregnant warrior queen fighting in battles"
at that point I decided that the franchise is lost
What's wrong with that? CK2 was a meme factory long before CK3 was released
>Orthodox don't have a equivalent of crusades or jihad so this is the best I got.
Sad.
Are you going to usurp the byzantine empire? Or are you just going to let it's duchies drift into your de jure?
No idea, I don't pay much attention to them. I'm just fricking around.
Can anyone here geniunely sell CK2 to someone that already likes CK3?
It's basically the same game, with worse graphics, except it's at the end of its lifecycle rather than the beginning. There's a frickton more content, both official and modded.
Compared to the Civ5-Civ6 gap, how different are 2 and 3?
I have never played either Civ 5 or Civ 6. It's... a smaller gap than going from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri to Civ 4, but that's all I got.
The base game CK2 is free on Steam, so if you're actually curious, give it a try.
>with worse graphics
highly subjective there, CK2 has:
>better UI
>more detailed portraits (pre-rendered 2d)
I guess you might argue the map looks better, albeit CK3 map is very boring and empty, while CK2 map (that doesn't even support mountain lakes) has so much going on with every province.
I geniunely can't understand this at all, hearing anyone talking about CK2 being better in any way except for music and events is like trying to understand a different language.
I tried it myself and found the UI barely readable. Digging up any marriage prospects takes twice the time it does in 3. Council, tech, and religion is incomprehensible. War is more punishing with less forgiving troop replenishment. Just about everything else seems the same. I honestly can't fricking see what's so good about it, even trying to imagine nostalgia goggles on.
I honestly just think some people's brains are wired differently for this or some shit. I jumped right in to CK2 and after a few games I just knew where everything was, I had no problem navigating at all. On the other hand, I've seen people who seem quite good at grand strategy games, easily better than I am at them, talking about what an incomprehensible mess CK2's UI is and how they still get lost in it.
For whatever reason it took me literally years of occasionally jumping in and giving up before CK2 clicked for me. I've never had such a difficult learning curve with a game. But once it clicked I loved it.
>War is more punishing with less forgiving troop replenishment.
Do you prefer how meaningless troops are in CK3? I once slew 50% of Byzantine Empire troops in a single battle (numbering like 30K). Realistically this would have been a military disaster that had plunged them into a crisis and taken them a decade to recover, but in CK3 within just two years they had regrown their troops.
I would be ok with making the rate adjustable in the setup screen
you can't adjust it because CK3 levies are magic, they aren't manpower, they are heavily modified by things like martial stats
>Digging up any marriage prospects takes twice the time it does
not true
>Council, tech, and religion is incomprehensible.
Maybe if you are a drooling moron
>War is more punishing with less forgiving troop replenishment.
Good.
I can now see who the moron mobile UI design is catering towards.
Do you want to actually elaborate on any of that or do you just want to shit on the floor and leave?
Why would I waste my time to elaborate on points that are disproving blank statements? If you wanted a more detailed counter to your claim maybe you should have elaborated on your criticisms.
I'm not going to argue with someone who calls me a moron.
>Council, tech, and religion is incomprehensible.
CK2 without DLCs has the same council mechanics as CK3, with Conclave the council members just have different opinions about ruling the realm.
Tech is leagues better, being tied to location rather than culture. It models actual technology much better than CK3's innovation system.
Religion has actual depth, and religions feel drastically different. CK3 religion is just about creating your own religion to serve your desires.
>War is more punishing with less forgiving troop replenishment
This is good. War should be costly.
How does CK2's culture spread even work? Spreading it manually by hand a la 3 seems bullshit history-wise but I prefer it for LARP reasons
>CK3 religion is just about creating your own religion to serve your desires
That is what I'm looking for in a game though
>This is good. War should be costly.
Not if a movement misclick completely fricks you over, games should be forgiving to account for the limitations of being a fricking game
>Not if a movement misclick completely fricks you over, games should be forgiving to account for the limitations of being a fricking game
Is it that hard to pause the game a few times during war or to play on a lower speed to be careful and strategize? You sound like a casual brainlet to me. And ck2 is probably one of the easiest paradox games out there and you still find war too unforgiving, it's kind of laughable.
>How does CK2's culture spread even work?
By event, if you rule a province long enough, it'll eventually culture switch.
>Not if a movement misclick completely fricks you over
Skill issue
Grand strategy is about shaping alternate history. It should have NO skill barriers at all whatsoever. It's supposed to be an indulgent genre. It's moronic enough there's any consideration for PvP multiplayer at all when making these games but Paradox is Paradox.
I don't understand why RTS shitters keep trying to put their bootprints everywhere but /vst/ does not belong to boomers, it does not belong to skillgays, it does not belong to hostile homosexuals that want to shill their fossil games and those games alone.
If you can't recommend me a good strategy game made after 2020 then I know every single one of you are worthless and deserve to be shot and I'll know to leave so I can spend better time with better people. Frick you, frick the anon you were replying to, frick the OP, don't insult me, don't mock me, the board belongs to me and not you. Black person. I'm not a fricking schizo. I'm not going back to Ganker. Maybe you should just shut the frick up and stop jerking off to the prospect of the past. New games are better, new generation are better people. Death to you and you oldgays and you everything fricking frick you homosexuals fricking frick. I'm responsible for at least a dozen of the posts here trying to support the new world and everyone just keeps insulting me well frick you all frickers homosexual frickers frick frick.
If this post isn't based I don't know what is
>a good strategy game made after 2020
5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel
>How does CK2's culture spread even work?
Slowly. Provinces of a foreign culture have a small chance to get an event that converts them to your culture. There's bloodline bonuses and the like that make it faster, and tribals can do it with a council mission.
>if a movement misclick completely fricks you over
Dude, it's not the game's fault if you frick up. It's reasonable to get mad if a game puts you in a really unfair situation, or if the interface gets in the way, but if you click the wrong thing, that's all on you.
>That is what I am lookimg for in a gam though
Then CK2 is not for you. But, I am sure you will enjoy their upcoming game, Victoria 3.
This strongly sounds to me as if you're used to CK3 and went to CK2 and were confused because it wasn't the same. This isn't a flaw in CK2 since it was never designed for CK3 players – unlike the other way round, in that CK3 was designed with CK2 players as an expected player base. Your objections sound completely hollow to me because it doesn't seem like you've really learnt CK2. If you actually got to grips with CK2 and still thought it inferior, then I would listen.
Then why shill board-wide for CK2 unless it's just whine about the younger generation? There's nothing I despise more than old men talking shit about the tastes of younger people
I love how the word "shill" has gone from meaning someone paid to say something to just anyone who says anything.
>t. old man
Fellow oldgay here
You know you are talking to a moron when he keeps using those buzzwords because he wants to fit in and show how much of a Gankerner he is
You WILL suffer erectile dysfunction
You WILL be crippled by memory loss
You WILL lose your hair
You WILL slowly be unable to do basic tasks without mistakes
You WILL die from a stroke or heart attack
You WILL be alone in the casket at your funeral
Time consumes all in the end.
Even Death
but does the negress has a fat ass and nice hips
>old men talking shit about the tastes of younger people
If 18- and 19-year-olds are old men, I'd sooner report you for being underage.
I find it weirder that there's even a divide. If people are pirating both then no one should care about each other's tastes. If people are buying both, then the same company gets the money anyway.
Except – and I'm going to point this out again –CK2 is now free to play.
Nobody plays CK2 without expansions.
I mean that's obviously not literally true. It's true of course that the whole point of it being free to play is that once you start playing it a good deal you shell out for the expansion subscription. But it's still kind of a good deal if you're not the kind of moron who forgets to cancel your subscription.
You can unlock all the dlcs in 5 minutes for free. You can do that with all paradox games. As long as you own the base game in which case ck2 is free to play so you get it all for free.
All video games are free. What of it?
>All video games are free
Sure if you don't count the opportunity cost of spending 2000 painting maps is probably close to a hundred grand. And yet here we are.
2000 *hours
What are some obligatory expansions for CK II?
If you don't get all of them from a friendly Russian forum?
I'd say Holy Fury, Way of Life, the Reaper's Due, and Sons of Abraham are the best DLCs. Conclave is also good, but I hate the way you raise children in it. All expand the important parts of the game mechanics in interesting ways and add more depth.
Is Legacy of Rome good?
Legacy of Rome is good, yes. Actually, I slept on a few of the features, thinking they were base game
>Factions and revolts
>Levies are only raised by direct vassals
These are honestly game-changers, and make internal realm management much more interesting.
When making my list, I thought Legacy of Rome was just Byzantine flavor and retinues, both of which are great; however, I didn't think they were essential.
Literally all of them, because CK2 is the ultimate DLC experience by PDX. If there is one to skip, then it would be the Sunset Invasion.
>CK2 is better than CK3
>except for Sunset Invasion
Why is this board so full of history-obsessed homosexuals?
Where do you think we are?
Not Ganker
It's not even about the history. Otherwise, CK2 wouldn't have anywhere near as many pagan LARPers.
Sunset Invasion is just bad from a gameplay perspective.
Look, it's not my fault that everyone in your stunted generation has shit taste.
Can you even explain what's stunted about Gen Z? No, I didn't think so. Maybe deal with your midlife crisis somewhere else bro.
>shit taste
no such thing
CK2's map is also better because you dont have to scroll in to click on provinces.
Plus there is no forced terrain mapmode which is nice too. Paradox's old maps were simply better.
Been looking into playing some modded ck2. I heard that HiP is good but what mods are must haves that are compatible with HiP?
>ck2
>strategy
I can't play ck3 not because I think it's a bad game overall but the UI sucks so bad I can't stand it. Every time I tried I got like 2 hours in into my campaign I have to quit cause of the moronic UI. I don't understand how they can frick up so bad. The UI for ck2 was so simple and easy to read. It it ain't broke don't fix it etc.
This thread is about CK3 but ironically it made me want to play CK2
Any tips for a first time player?
Yeah, buy CK3 and never look back. Second tip, never come back to this website for recommendations for any product, ever.
>Second tip, never come back to this website for recommendations for any product, ever.
Solid advice, I still remember the Cyberpunk and Bannerlord shilling
>Yeah, buy CK3 and never look back.
Is it really that much better?
I like strategy mixed with RPG aspects
CK3 is supposedly better for the RP. However, there are only a few events that repeat, and none of them have any checks for consistency. Your heir will shoot a peasant during a hunt. Your spymaster will reveal his own plots to you. Your wife will cuck you even if you're soul mates. And you will seek audience to your own court and complain to your empty throne about your wife's infidelity.
Not to worry, Paradox just has another month or so of vacation time and then they'll be back at it until December, we might get a few more new events before the end of the year.
>>CK3 is supposedly better for the RP
Entire RP is completely thrown out of the door by lack of interactions.
>in feudal societies every time a vassal died, their successor had to come to the liege pay inheritance tax and pledge fealty (entire point of feudalism) in order to be recognized
Meanwhile, in CK inheritance is automatic, and vassal inheriting isn't even an event
>medieval rulers constantly moved from place to palce meeting with people
In CK, you rule from floating space ship know as your court, using star trek teleportation you and your armies can be anywhere. Furthermore, it isn't a biggie if your capital is occupied, because your court is space ship outside of the capital
If you'd read the whole post you'd notice it's not praising the game. And the things you mention aren't even any different in CK2.
Kek yeah you can pay $50 for CK3 or just play CK2 for free.
I refuse to play a video game for free. No pirating. If there's a demo I'll never touch it. If they stop charging for a game I stop playing it. Maybe you homosexuals should just stop running out of money instead
>this is the future of consumerism
seethe harder commies
Reading your post pushed me over the edge into being willing to openly say Uncle Ted was right.
I remember hearing a lot of people complain about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri UI being outdated and shit but I had zero problem with it playing for the first time