What I heard about CK3. Truth or legend ?

[hurepoix]

It is a paradox game ;-) I know what is paradox DLC politic, and will not have to complain if I buy the game.

More seriously, For what I heard AI is about inept, like in CK2, may be worst, because at ck2 some obvious problems had been fixed (like the pope starting an holy war vs Sri lanka)

However my main concern is rumors about simplification of the game as well as lack of difficulty (like very easy forged claim, and always successful plots ect ...)
I m not interrested in multiplayers, so flaws for this side of the games are not critical for me.

Thanks

[Heimeri Klein]

Never seen issues like that in ck2 but the ai in ck3 has a tendency to eat rocks. The pope NEVER helps out in the crusade. The pope does his own ♥♥♥♥ during the crusades. The regular troops from other nations wont help you either. So you either need to have a bigger army than the enemy side to get ♥♥♥♥ done, stick your troops to the pope and face the ungodly attrition, or just dont get involved.

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

It is a paradox game ;-) I know what is paradox DLC politic, and will not have to complain if I buy the game.

More seriously, For what I heard AI is about inept, like in CK2, may be worst, because at ck2 some obvious problems had been fixed (like the pope starting an holy war vs Sri lanka)

However my main concern is rumors about simplification of the game as well as lack of difficulty (like very easy forged claim, and always successful plots ect ...)
I m not interrested in multiplayers, so flaws for this side of the games are not critical for me.

Thanks

Ok, PDS just can't into AI, period. So if you want a challenge in that department - you're permanently out of luck.
Gameplay was heavily simplified in general and lots of things from CK2 aren't implemented (yet?).

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Ok, PDS just can't into AI, period. So if you want a challenge in that department - you're permanently out of luck.

AI was far to be smart at CK2, but it dont means game was easy. Like said, my biggest fear is about lack of difficulty and challenge at CK3. It is what some peoples argue at least.

[madracc00n]

It is very easy,when u learn basics about managing ur stuff.

[VoiD]

Once you learn the game I'd say it's not even easy, it's impossible not to do world conquests, your biggest challenge is enduring the boredom till the map is over.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Once you learn the game I'd say it's not even easy, it's impossible not to do world conquests, your biggest challenge is enduring the boredom till the map is over.

I would had prefer this to be irony.

[The Former]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Once you learn the game I'd say it's not even easy, it's impossible not to do world conquests, your biggest challenge is enduring the boredom till the map is over.

This is a personal issue. I have no problem playing small and staying small.

For the record, OP, game wasn't simplified at all. In fact there's more complexity to it. The distinction people are missing is that it was streamlined. This means the information is more clearly presented to the player and the steps to do things have been trimmed down. It does not at all mean that moving parts have been taken away.

You can Trash Emote that all you want, the truth is the truth. The actual mechanics, the actual code of the game has more complexity than CK2's. There are more elements to the game's simulation than before.

The fact that they've made these elements easier to control user-side is nothing short of a boon, and if you think otherwise, you're in the stark minority. 39,990 players probably aren't wrong.

[hurepoix]

My opinion is not made, but I m cautious. A complex game have few value if it is easy to bypass complexity. One spoke about stress, for exemple, and said his ruler was highly stressed after the death of is wife and two children. But a single night at the brothel for a bit of gold was enough for he forgot all.

Is it true forging claim is by far more easy than at CK2, And plots about always works with about no difficulties and few consequences if any ?

[VoiD]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

My opinion is not made, but I m cautious. A complex game have few value if it is easy to bypass complexity. One spoke about stress, for exemple, and said his ruler was highly stressed after the death of is wife and two children. But a single night at the brothel for a bit of gold was enough for he forgot all.

Is it true forging claim is by far more easy than at CK2, And plots about always works with about no difficulties and few consequences if any ?

Yes, forging claims is no issue whatsoever, and some religions you can create basically turn all the game's systems off by making it so none of your counties get pissed off at you doing wars nonstop, removes all the need for CBs and even lets you take down entire kingdoms 2+ times in a lifetime, per ruler (one in a holy war, one in a conquest, one in an invasion, etc...)

Also, it's not that plots always work, is that plots are not based on chance, so they have a timeile, and they always reach the end, and they always fire, and you always know your chances, and unless your character sucks terribly, you can just keep trying after it fails until it doesn't.

Also, unlike in CK2 where you had to game several systems (most from different DLCs) to make a godly general capable of stomping troops several times bigger than your own, in CK3 all you have to do is build up your men at arms, which is done in gen1, and when you die the next rulers are all going to inherit them anyway, so after you click a button a couple of times the game is basically over, MAA and decent positioning can beat holy wars solo, that means, taking over 100k troops and wiping out all the enemy stacks the moment they separate from the main group and/or let them starve to death by walking together for too long.

[The Former]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Originally posted by hurepoix:

My opinion is not made, but I m cautious. A complex game have few value if it is easy to bypass complexity. One spoke about stress, for exemple, and said his ruler was highly stressed after the death of is wife and two children. But a single night at the brothel for a bit of gold was enough for he forgot all.

Is it true forging claim is by far more easy than at CK2, And plots about always works with about no difficulties and few consequences if any ?

Yes, forging claims is no issue whatsoever, and some religions you can create basically turn all the game's systems off by making it so none of your counties get pissed off at you doing wars nonstop, removes all the need for CBs and even lets you take down entire kingdoms 2+ times in a lifetime, per ruler (one in a holy war, one in a conquest, one in an invasion, etc...)

Also, it's not that plots always work, is that plots are not based on chance, so they have a timeile, and they always reach the end, and they always fire, and you always know your chances, and unless your character sucks terribly, you can just keep trying after it fails until it doesn't.

Also, unlike in CK2 where you had to game several systems (most from different DLCs) to make a godly general capable of stomping troops several times bigger than your own, in CK3 all you have to do is build up your men at arms, which is done in gen1, and when you die the next rulers are all going to inherit them anyway, so after you click a button a couple of times the game is basically over, MAA and decent positioning can beat holy wars solo, that means, taking over 100k troops and wiping out all the enemy stacks the moment they separate from the main group and/or let them starve to death by walking together for too long.

All of this is if world conquest is your game. And that's a pretty large caveat, because there are more paths to victory than this. Paradox games, short of maybe Hearts of Iron (which has exceptionally deep warfare mechanics!), aren't meant to be map painters. They each zero in on a specific aspect of leadership throughout history and facilitate it.

In CK3, that aspect is the lord. The individual with wealth, power, and connections who could unleash his armies on the entire known world given enough gold and gumption, but who generally preferred to pull strings over sticking his neck out.

You're not even supposed to conquer the whole world in these games. The end goal of CK3 for instance is to have the most famous and undeniably successful dynasty in history by the end date. Conquest is certainly a way to get there, but you can achieve the number one spot without ever leaving your duchy.

If you're just setting up your army and then waging war after war after war until the whole map is your color, absolutely it's boring. It was never designed to be fun this way. It's boring the way that calling Odahviing to stomp every battle for you is boring in Skyrim. War is supposed to be but one tool in your arsenal, and ideally the last one you use. The primary purpose of men-at-arms, as in history, is supposed to be the protection of your realm.

I and many others keep men-at-arms as insurance against retaliation, then spend our time watching our dynasty and its neighbors, looking for the right people to put over and the right time to secure the perfect marriage to advance our name. We have a ton of fun with the game.

One of my most memorable uses of military actually tied into this. Having taken the third son of England's king into my care, I married him matrilineally to my daughter after I saw he'd become next in line due to a series of military blunders on England's part. Five years later he'd inherited. I only brought out my army when the fledgling king was beset by a claimant Holy Roman Emperor.

Using the positions I'd secured in Wales (through marriage a generation before) and Brittany (through patient rulership), I essentially won him the war all on my own at great cost to my own realm. The war was bloody. We were outnumbered three to one, only able to contest the enemy through hit-and-run strategies, baited ambushes, and strategic skirmishing to defeat them in detail.

My most memorable use of military force in CK3 was when I used it to advance the AI. All for the dynasty. Three generations later, my dynasty still ruled England with an iron fist, and had with minimal further help gone on to conquer Scotland and Ireland. I watched with pride as the AI created Great Britain in my name, all because of a few decisive political moves I'd made 150 years earlier.

TL;DR, play the game. Don't just click your troops around on the map, I mean play the game. Really play it.

[The Former]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

My opinion is not made, but I m cautious. A complex game have few value if it is easy to bypass complexity. One spoke about stress, for exemple, and said his ruler was highly stressed after the death of is wife and two children. But a single night at the brothel for a bit of gold was enough for he forgot all.

Is it true forging claim is by far more easy than at CK2, And plots about always works with about no difficulties and few consequences if any ?

Regarding stress: If you're stressed highly enough, you won't forget it all from one night in the brothel. That one night, like many things in a game of this scope, is supposed to be a snapshot of pathological brothel-going behavior, but that aside, even that isn't enough to take you from tier 3 stress to zero.

Regarding the forging of claims: Unfortunately, yes. Well, I wouldn't say far more easy, it's done in pretty much the same way. The claim forging mechanic remains one of my least favorite in Crusader Kings, and I rarely use it as a result.

Regarding plots: That's absolutely untrue. You take a risk with just about any plot because there's always the possibility someone will find out, now or even years later, and use that knowledge against you.

Now as far as success and failure, if you manage to get enough people onboard and prepare your plans successfully through several event choices, yes, they're fairly reliable. However that's not to say you're guaranteed success. The fact aside that chance of success has a cap that's less than 100%, if your target has high Intrigue, a good Spymaster, and not a lot of enemies in his court for you to leverage, the odds can become exceptionally low.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight:

All of this is if world conquest is your game. And that's a pretty large caveat, because there are more paths to victory than this.

I have read all of your last two answers and chose this part to explain my main concern.

This quote can apply too, for CIV 1 to 4, but with a major reserve. At CIV, especially, if you didnt played the lowest difficulty level, you were not sure to be the winner each time you started a game.

I will probably give a chance to CK3, even, I m really not a fan of game that are a chronicle of victory foretold.

[joshthomas134]

eitheir play it or don't i have many hours in ck2 good game ck3 good game will be great when royal court drops. don't not play a game based on what others think cause at the end of the day ur the one playing the game if u enjoy cool if not it was not for u see ya.

[Jackochainsaw]

I don't entirely agree with all plots being easy. Recent Meritocracy failed (in my campaign). Intrigue plots often fail, some before you've got 3 or 4 months in. Forged claims always succeeds but if you don't have the gold you have to be prepared for debt in early game, takes longer the worse your priest is and your own learning.

Game difficulty depends on starting location, start date and rank. You can cheese a good start with a custom leader and min/max to attributes. Some starts are ultra hard (Counts and Dukes in low development locations, especially those rampaged by the Mongol Horde but also Africa). Changes since 1.4.4 have put factions on serious anger mode so transitions to sub-optimal successors can hurt unless you prepare (but even that isn't always enough).

It's all a matter of perspective. I'm new to CK franchise so my opinion may vary but I've played Civ 1 > 6 so not unfamiliar with strategy games. Also to note, in 3 out of 4 recent campaigns I've had less than happy outcomes (one game over). I wouldn't say easy, for me at least, suitably challenging. For the iron man achievements I tend to approach them a more difficult way than the "easy" route.

You can lose a game with one bad liege. It can all unravel in one generation if you over-extend.

I don't play Byzantine (in either start), HRE Emperor in 1066 or the Ummayad/Abassid dynasties as I consider that OP. You are basically handed the keys to the Bugatti Veyron if you start in any of those as the leader. The vassals might be annoying but you can essentially hulk smash from the off.

In terms of AI:

The AI don't go on the attack too much. They nurse their lands a long time. Only the Byzantines and the Vikings get greedy. The Ash'ari faith grows like bamboo (rapidly). There are some deficiencies in faith creation as well. Having to get 3 holy sites can be enough to stop most unreformed faiths in their tracks so AI normally default to Clan (Islam) or Feudal (Christian) to haul themselves out of tribal government. AI empires rarely form unless they were already created. The AI never seem to get to it. Allies will charge through huge enemy formations to try to join up with you, handing the enemy war score rather than avoiding them. Combat is still rather pants in my opinion.

TL;DR - All opinions on this are subjective. You'll only know how good or bad it is by playing it yourself. That said, in my personal opinion I'd say from my 750+ hours of play, it needs some major tweaks in certain areas for balance and some of the areas play rather generically after a point where others have some flavour.

Side note: I am having huge fun in my most recent campaign starting from 867 as a Sheikh on the Morocco coast who has converted culture to Catalan (has now got High partition), formed the Malikate of Corso-Sardenyia after island hopping all the way through Ibiza, Mallorca and Minorca, has taken Cagliari as the Capital, is farming the Argentiera mine for sweet sweet gold, has now conquered most of Morroco (Maghreb), Provence and Languedoc. Has created a new religion of "Zandaqan Jawhar" based on Muwalladi but with some twists, will be passing on the reign to a female (the imams will talk) and is eyeing up the next lamb to the slaughter, all whilst spreading Catalan culture through the Baranis region. But of note, it took me 3 attempts to come up with that strategy while playing Iron Man. Once the del Rei dynasty moves Capital to Cordoba (which will be no mean feat to wrestle off the Umayyads) I will be going for the Al Andalus achievement which will be No. 42 of 66. But it's not guaranteed. I could have another fail if I approach it wrong. I'm not always the smartest player so occasionally I bungle things in my red mists, I'm still learning despite many hours played.