I understand now how folks put thousands of hours CK games.

[Banyan42]

New to CK games. 140 hours in, still playing Ireland. My vassals got tired of me messing about in Scotland and started taking over England on their own when they saw an opportunity. Kind of a shock to me, didn't know they'd just go off the chain like that. I think I'm a late night or two away from being able to declare myself Emperor of Britannia.

Man, I feel like I'm just starting out in this game. Its fantastic, and dangerous to my sleep schedule. Bring on the DLC. (why does everyone hate on that? I will fastball all the money Paradox wants at them to keep adding content to this. Dollars per hour played, it'll always be a great deal.)

So, a question. When I finally hit 1452 (or whatever it is) and move on to something else, how different will it feel? Like, I'm sure some of the starts in that general area might feel similar, but I'm wondering if I pick something farther away, will it be about the same, or a radically different experience? I'm really curious but want to see this run through till the end.

[The Former]

It won't be radically different, but it will be a little different especially if you allow yourself to let go and go with the flow, rather than micromanaging to build an empire as efficiently as possible. The new context of a game in a different part of the world can make a game feel different from run to run because of how different the balance of power is in that region, and how the different cultural and religious advents affect how the game unfolds.

However, a lot of that gets negated for those who play the same way every time! For those who have a very specific goal and a very specific way they aim to reach that goal and do it every time, the game will feel a bit similar each time, barring differences in how events toss curve balls at your plans.

Also, glad to hear you're enjoying it! Welcome to the Crusader Kings fold. :)

[CrUsHeR]

I think the major long-term motivation factor in CK2 were the playstyles of the different governments. Examples:

- Regular Feudal ruler, perhaps gaining land in a Crusade
- Lowly Count in a major realm, and only scheme and plot and seduce yourself to the top
- Tribal realms with completely different mechanics (e.g. Norse vs. defensive pagans vs. muslims)
- Nomad build-up from 250 raiders to 100,000 unstoppable riders of doom
- Merchant Republic
- Muslim realms with open succession + decadence
- etc.

So you basically could play 1 campaign with each possible goverment/religion type, and the game would actually feel different with the next type. Obviously all of the above was added in DLCs, so it is not a surprise that everything in CK3 is currently mostly based on the core "european feudal" playstyle.

If you enjoyed your first campaign that much, you still can clock a couple hundred hours more into the vanilla game. And look forward to more DLC which will probably be better planned than the mostly chaotic and inconsistent CK2 DLCs.

[Isaac]

Play ck2 and you will know why we are afraid of DLC. There are so many little things that weren't added into ck3 that i know they are going to try and sell even though they were in the last game. ck2 is a better game ATM.

[ikben_melvin]

Originally posted by Isaac:

Play ck2 and you will know why we are afraid of DLC. There are so many little things that weren't added into ck3 that i know they are going to try and sell even though they were in the last game. ck2 is a better game ATM.

This is my worry. Thinking of getting on Gamepass but think I'll wait until next version.

[Banyan42]

I guess I look at it like this; they could leave it as it is and I have no option to add anything more to the game, or they can make some new stuff and if I'm still interested in playing, I can look at others' reviews and see if its worth it to pick up. If it is, I don't have a problem paying a premium for that. I like options, and the more I have, the better. If I wasn't playing CK I'd probably be spending money on some other game anyway. Not that its any sort of justification, but some folks spend $10+ a month to play some lame grindy MMO. Thirty bucks a couple times a year for a game this thick is fine for me, and not bad at all in dollars per hour of entertainment, based on my experience so far.

[CrUsHeR]

Originally posted by Isaac:

Play ck2 and you will know why we are afraid of DLC. There are so many little things that weren't added into ck3 that i know they are going to try and sell even though they were in the last game. ck2 is a better game ATM.

Basically there were a lot of CK2 things which were scrapped from Ck3, simply because they were not working very well. Mostly also replaced by better solutions, in particular the Lifestyle system is much better as-is, and a much better platform for future DLC integration.

For example the secret societies were terrible abusive trash.
Religious cults were 100% unstoppable (like turning 769 Abassids into Zoroastrians).
Assassins with 1000% murderplots on everyone including foreign rulers 1000 miles away.
Devil worshippers.... urgh. Dumbest idea in all of CK2.

Lodges were only available to certain cultures.
Others had monastic societies, and these were stupidly OP & repetitive.
Lastly the Hermetics, which most people probably used for the guaranteed stress/depression removal.

I think we could go on for a few pages to analyze the "why" of all removed features from CK2.
Focusing on the actually new features which replaced the junk from CK2 (like dynasty vs. bloodlines etc), CK3 already looks better in every possible comparison. The 10/10 reviews are justified.

Other things like Horse Lords & Jade Dragon, i would assume that China will actually become part of the map, since the eastern borders of Xia and Tibet are literally the gateway to China in that era.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Isaac:

Play ck2 and you will know why we are afraid of DLC. There are so many little things that weren't added into ck3 that i know they are going to try and sell even though they were in the last game. ck2 is a better game ATM.

Which specifically? More than half the best DLC features are already here. I guess you could say Horse Lords and merchant republics, but those were hardly little things. You're looking at the admittedly little things that aren't here while ignoring all the things that are. Did you forget that we couldn't play Muslim or Pagan rulers in CK2 without DLC? Did you forget that Way of Life was DLC? Retinues? Hooks and powerful vassals? Just how much is your pessimism causing you to overlook?

[Night Hunter]

To continue on from what Knight-Errant is saying, it looks like more of the differences are integrated into systems like events and different options within the game systems than changing the base game systems or mechanics, which are more consistent across the board. That's a boon in terms of not having to learn completely different systems playing different dynasties or regions, though it's a loss if the different mechanics and systems were appealing to one (I'm more of the opinion that if it plays like a different game, it might as well actually be a different game; I don't generally expect games to be 4 games in 1). This is likely a consequence of both a greater focus on the role-play/story generator elements and the opportunity to have more tightly integrated and consistent game systems afforded by the redesign for a new game as opposed to increasingly quirky and disconnected game systems resulting from years of DLC additions.

Stellaris demonstrates the potential nadir of the Paradox development approach - it's been badly broken for YEARS, with lots of features simply not working as intended or AT ALL, an AI that has no concept of the core mechanics any more, and an engine where the underlying approach to algorithmic decisions can't handle all of the additional computation for the added/altered features efficiently, resulting in prohibitively massive slowdown as the game length increases, while they still focus on adding and changing even more of the game with new DLC, breaking it even more with each iteration rather than fixing the core issues.

CK2 was increasingly straining under the weight of additions and alterations (though still nowhere close to Stellaris's situation), so I see the refocus and clean redesign as an unmitigated good, but there are certainly people who bemoan the loss of specific features (including some that were prone to unintended exploitation, for which I have less sympathy than, say, fasn of playing as republics); luckily for them, CK2 hasn't ceased to exist, and they can continue playing it to their hearts' content.

[Pocky Stomper]

My fear of CK3 is that they will FUBAR the game and UI.

They've done a fantastic job clarifying the gameplay and UI. In a year from now will they abandon the well organized game mechanics and UI into something unrecognizable? In CK2 for example, there are troop size indicators and other progress indicators that no longer work correctly because the game changed so much. There are mechanics that just make no sense. Finding information related to a game concept is scattered across various, nested areas. The same happened with EUIV and Stellaris. Everything changed so drastically that getting back into the game from prior experience just didn't work (its an entirely different game).

[The Former]

Originally posted by Solomani:

My fear of CK3 is that they will FUBAR the game and UI.

They've done a fantastic job clarifying the gameplay and UI. In a year from now will they abandon the well organized game mechanics and UI into something unrecognizable? In CK2 for example, there are troop size indicators and other progress indicators that no longer work correctly because the game changed so much. There are mechanics that just make no sense. Finding information related to a game concept is scattered across various, nested areas. The same happened with EUIV and Stellaris. Everything changed so drastically that getting back into the game from prior experience just didn't work (its an entirely different game).

That's not impossible, unfortunately. Here's hoping everything holds together.

[Banyan42]

I agree with the viewpoints from the vets in the last several entries. I actually own CK2 and all its DLC (got it in one of those 80% off sales) but I couldn't find anything even remotely up to date for tutorial videos and when I got in the game, nothing seemed consistent with the really dated ones I could find to watch. Bounced off of it. Ah well, you win some, you lose some.

In the end, though, unless they skew my current version CK3, them developing a boatload of DLC doesn't mean I have to buy it and change my game any, unless I choose to. If you owned vanilla CK2 on launch day, it is essentially the same as vanilla CK2 today aside from some bugfixes and balancing, right? (This is an assumption on my part, I have no way of knowing)

The Stellaris situation is unfortunate about game performance. I've always wanted to give that a try too, but I'm so late to the party I don't know where to start with it. Would vanilla Stellaris be playable to start with, and then add in expansions incrementally until you hit a sweet spot?

Anyway, if they maintain the quality in DLC as they put out in the core game here, I welcome any addition that improves and expands on the game. Horse Lords? Merchant Republics? Some mysterious change with how China works? I can't wait to see those things in CK3.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Banyan42:

In the end, though, unless they skew my current version CK3, them developing a boatload of DLC doesn't mean I have to buy it and change my game any, unless I choose to. If you owned vanilla CK2 on launch day, it is essentially the same as vanilla CK2 today aside from some bugfixes and balancing, right? (This is an assumption on my part, I have no way of knowing.)

That's how I've always viewed it too. And yeah, that's pretty much it, though I believe a few features here and there also got added in free updates over the years.