old school CK2 players can you recommend this?

[SixtyFive]

Hi,

So we're about 2 years into CK3's life.
Is it worth playing? Or should I wait.

[[OCe]Kagari]

Mantas eredeti hozzászólása:

OCeKagari eredeti hozzászólása:

I do miss some features from CK2 but this is true

True, but even with the newest features introduced in CK2 most recently you could tell that the game engine was at its limit

yup, ck2 was so bloated that it run worse than ck3 in the late game

[ste]

Ive played ck2 once since ck3, its still a great game. CK3 is newer and shinier, different tactics are involved, not everything transfers over to CK3, if you try to play this the same way you will probably fail, and vice versa. It does make CK2 feel a bit dated.
CK2 with all DLC still has more content and unique events than CK3.

The CK2 is harder or whatever I do not get, its not true, once you get to an empire in CK2 you are unstoppable. On CK3 that is when the challenge really begins.

[Lord Haart]

SeaKayFree FTW

[Rodi]

Ck2 is objectively better in terms of content and difficulty
Ck3 has better presentation and less tedium to play(well royal court aims to change this)

[Don-Meisner]

Yes yes and more yes.
Its amazing and a worthy successor to CK2 unlike most of my sons are to my titles

[EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ]

Graphic wise CK3 is a an improvement, when it come to core game though is far from
reaching Ck2 options and mechanics. CK2 is more strategy oriented more of bespoke, a niche classic strategy gameplay meaning is far more sophisticated strategic game, than CK3 even with dlcs, meanwhile Ck3 is aimed is more causal gamers with some very basic elements of strategy. Also at same time CK3 try's fit in/appeals to "politcos" or modern politics of "moneymakers" which takes out lot of core aspect, if you value quality over quantity.
CK3 has mods that can re-arrange things and modify some aspect of gameplay, but still is far from being Ck2 successor IMO.
Beside, I also play Field of Glory - Empires and export the battles in Field of Glory II which to me is one of the games that does many thing right in term of strategy. To me
the niche solid core game or bespoke gameplay is more important in the end than graphic and im firm beliver of quality over quantity. Yet to each is own.

[Eddie Latium]

Yes indeed. The various elements blend well together.

[JC]

EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ eredeti hozzászólása:

the niche solid core game or bespoke gameplay is more important in the end than graphic and im firm beliver of quality over quantity. Yet to each is own.

Except for some the whole idea that each person is unique, with the display of traits showing up is a huge bonus. That is the main reason why i can't go back to CKII, a game of clones. It bugged me when i played CKII, this unqiue person and story they had looked exactly like someone in another family/dynasty half way across the map with no relation. But when i first played CKIII that was gone. It's a game certainly in progress but even so far i enjoy it more than i did when i first started with CKII. I didn't enjoy that game till way of life patch hit and that was years into the game.

Besides, while CKII is baked a bit more and in some ways a bit harder it certainly was not always the case in that game, It took a long time for the AI to actually become decent.

In CKII for example you could try to convert all of GB to cathar stomping around england playing a tribe in the 800's which was a challenge, I have not found something equal in this game though i also only have about 75 hours into this one and having fun. But you could also easily cruise to forming GB as a christian or the HRE or what ever else you wanted to do. There were tons of easy things that took little effort in that game as well.

People act like CKII is some amazing strategy game. When you can do what ever you want it's really not, it may throw a few curveballs at you but in the end it's a pretty chill game. That doesn't mean it's not fun and sometimes takes some thought but i wouldn't call it a hard game.

[Machiavelli]

ai in ck3 is inherently passive lmao. so the roleplayers can play dolls freely. i respec, but i like to play dolls with som challenge. royal court was kinda a flop for the price. claim throne is too op.

ai in ck2, every smuck and their mum is plotting my demise.

[Ashling]

Fellington eredeti hozzászólása:

ai in ck3 is inherently passive lmao.

When I was fighting a country, I was sort of annoyed that I couldn't get past them because all their units were countering mine (I know you can check this before the war but I thought they were small).

I had enough time to, in the same war, disband my army, reorganize and rebuild my army to counter their units, and then go on to win it. They did nothing to stop me.

[EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ]

JC eredeti hozzászólása:

EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ eredeti hozzászólása:

the niche solid core game or bespoke gameplay is more important in the end than graphic and im firm beliver of quality over quantity. Yet to each is own.

Except for some the whole idea that each person is unique, with the display of traits showing up is a huge bonus. That is the main reason why i can't go back to CKII, a game of clones. It bugged me when i played CKII, this unqiue person and story they had looked exactly like someone in another family/dynasty half way across the map with no relation. But when i first played CKIII that was gone. It's a game certainly in progress but even so far i enjoy it more than i did when i first started with CKII. I didn't enjoy that game till way of life patch hit and that was years into the game.

Besides, while CKII is baked a bit more and in some ways a bit harder it certainly was not always the case in that game, It took a long time for the AI to actually become decent.

In CKII for example you could try to convert all of GB to cathar stomping around england playing a tribe in the 800's which was a challenge, I have not found something equal in this game though i also only have about 75 hours into this one and having fun. But you could also easily cruise to forming GB as a christian or the HRE or what ever else you wanted to do. There were tons of easy things that took little effort in that game as well.

People act like CKII is some amazing strategy game. When you can do what ever you want it's really not, it may throw a few curveballs at you but in the end it's a pretty chill game. That doesn't mean it's not fun and sometimes takes some thought but i wouldn't call it a hard game.

I'm comparing CK's not vis-a-vis other games. If you want real challenge try Field of glory empires, the decadence system penalty alone makes the game hard
if you expand to fast without developing your country first it punishes you, if you focus on certain building that produce decadence , some example among many is usury, lavish places with "public houses" in it, minting coins, slavery founditas, wealth displaying palaces, advanced marketplaces/trading tents, and being warmogers among others, the decadence expands tri fold and which sends your country into civil war, ect, ect that system alone makes the game hard and it forces you to think and invest wisely, and is realistic because decadence is main reason in history that has destroyed empires from east : persia,egypt*,babylon, carthage* and ultimately ottomans,ect,ect, to west rome, england, france,ect, ect, and in other continents they did not do any better and if you read purely historical sources, and pay attention to archeology, beside the empty political rhetorics/ revisonist versions with political agendas, the main thing that has contributed to their fall too was decadence, and still does in modern times impact many countries even more and if history it teaches anything, is that is harsh teacher soon or latter it will teach those who ignore it :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiJflPklnc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yxakizKYJ4




now for the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-MjJnDZJ_s

and doesen't stop over there you can also export battlde to Field of glory 2 and import the result back to field of glory empires to give another layer of option in term of strategic and tactical game play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca7nzsMLuT8

On topic
Ck2 has enough option on its own and mods as HIP mod and then, CK2 plus if you looking for challenges without the need to play any minor faction.
In term of graphic personally is the last thing I look into a game, graphics in gaming industry always from 2005 and up have been used as mean of marketing or PR when core aspects of game lack,
Off Topic same backward evolution is in other aspect of entertainment industry as movies to much focus graphics and politics with total lack of the rest as story/scripting which makes the movies interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12f0ligwS5s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZrW8nD6qtM

But like I said to each is own, I value quality over quantity.

[StrayDogFreedom]

Mantas eredeti hozzászólása:

Well look at it this way:

Since I got CK3, I never launched CK2 since.

same.

[Zaph]

It's alright but I still hate the fact that you can't even access Primogeniture until 1200 AD at the soonest. Makes the earlier start points, especially the earliest, a constant pain in the ass with forced partition resulting in every new ruler shattering your holdings and distributing them to every brother, uncle, nephew, cousin, and various other distant relation the game can fish up unless you carefully micromanage who and when you hand out titles to right before you die. I get that it could potentially be quite overpowered in CK2 but it feels like they overcompensated by just making primogeniture inaccessible for most of the game and by the time you get it it really shouldn't matter.

[EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ]

Palaiologos eredeti hozzászólása:

Zaph eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm comparing CK's not vis-a-vis other games. If you want real challenge try Field of glory empires, the decadence system penalty alone makes the game hard
if you expand to fast without developing your country first it punishes you, if you focus on certain building that produce decadence , some example among many is usury, lavish places with "public houses" in it, minting coins, slavery founditas, wealth displaying palaces, advanced marketplaces/trading tents, and being warmogers among others, the decadence expands tri fold and which sends your country into civil war, ect, ect that system alone makes the game hard and it forces you to think and invest wisely, and is realistic because decadence is main reason in history that has destroyed empires from east : persia,egypt*,babylon, carthage* and ultimately ottomans,ect,ect, to west rome, england, france,ect, ect, and in other continents they did not do any better and if you read purely historical sources, and pay attention to archeology, beside the empty political rhetorics/ revisonist versions with political agendas, the main thing that has contributed to their fall too was decadence, and still does in modern times impact many countries even more and history if anything is harsh teacher soon or latter it will teach those who ignore it :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiJflPklnc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yxakizKYJ4

Saying an empire collapsed due to decadence is like calling a random item dug up at an archaeological site ceremonial.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20057861

Look at the end of roman empire how well was faring and it's policies it implemented, ,relying on forgeiner hired troops, court machinations/extreme greed and corruption in court, decadent lifestyles, decadence was everywhere not just common things.

Than look Persia expanion from historical view point.Decadence start slowly but once it starts it just becomes bigger and bigger and has snowball effect.

[Ashling]

EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ eredeti hozzászólása:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20057861

Look at the end of roman empire how well was faring and it's policies it implemented, court machinations , relying on forgeiner troops,

I think that just pushes the question back though. If decadence causes empires to fall then what causes decadence? Perhaps a failing empire.