Would I like Crusader Kings 3?

[Willow Ufgood]

I have seen many people playing crusader kings i did try out crusader kings 2 but it seemed a bit too sandbox for me i felt there was no structure no real goal i played not much of it all of it spent more time watching tutorials than actually playing they where like hour long videos teaching everything.

When i started to play and for someone who does not play grand strategy games it felt like quite a learning curve i didn't know what to do where to go i get it is all about the stories that unfold and painting the map is just a way to play.

My most played games are Mount & Blade games and the Civilisation games so i thought it would be fun i just couldn't get into it anyways i have hear Crusader Kings 3 is not as steep but also not as deep to learn and play do you think that i would actually like the game or should i not bother with grand strategy and stick to turn based games like battle brothers and such

Idk maybe there a some mods or something that might simplify crusader kings 2 if any of you know of a way to get a simpleton like me to understand and grasp the game lemme know maybe grand strategy just isn't for me

I am open to trying crusader kings 2 again as i am getting kinda bored with playing Warsim: Realms of Aslona and Battle brothers on repeat whilst waiting for a Bannerlord update

Thanks in advance

[AC Denton]

We have no way of knowing whether you'd like it or not. We're not you.
You could try EU4 for an easier time. It's not as good as CK3 imo but I put 1200 hours into EU4 before I even started CK3.

If you're totally lost, find someone to do a quick co-op game with to learn the games. I learned a lottttt more from doing EU4 coop than I did watching tutorials. The rest came easy enough, learn as you go.

[The Former]

I'd definitely say you could. If you like games like Battle Brothers and Mount and Blade, it's not necessarily that you have an aversion to sandbox games, because both qualify as such. Rather I suspect your issue with Crusader Kings is that the goals aren't made clear to you.

To that I suggest, if you do decide to try again... Set your own goals. Short-term goals. ("Short-term" in Crusader Kings means 5-15 years, generally.) The overarching goal of the game is to establish a dynasty that stands the test of time and, preferably, rises to great prominence. It's what happens between "zero and hero", so to speak, that makes the game fun.

[shakenidentity]

As others have said,

Originally posted by AC Denton:

We have no way of knowing whether you'd like it or not. We're not you.

But regarding the learning curve:

Originally posted by Willow Ufgood:

spent more time watching tutorials than actually playing

for someone who does not play grand strategy games it felt like quite a learning curve

You could try the in-game tutorial to start with, although I never had luck with that. I tried three times, and it froze up on me all three times at different points to where the only thing I could do was to completely back out of the games forever. So, I started watching all of the youtube tutorials, but then, I would get a lot of information without knowing how to apply it.

What I did that ultimately helped me with the learning curve was to play on debug mode and for stage one, just be okay at first with a lot of cheating. I cheated like crazy in stage one, but the utility of this is that you get through the game easily enough to finally be able to see how everything fits together. You're able to get a bird's eye view of the game instead of just being enmeshed in all of the details that you can't really move left, right, or any direction in at first. Once you see how all of the parts fit together, it's much easier to develop strategies for future games, even if you don't really know exactly how to effect all of the little details into action.

For stage two, I picked a facet of the game that I wanted to master as much as possible. So, armed with some hours of already cheating in the game, when I went back to youtube tutorials and focused only on one aspect- I think 'how to make money' might have been my first learning goal- and by then, everything I watched online made more sense. Then, I went back to the game and let myself cheat with the debug console on everything EXCEPT making money. And so on.

As I mastered each facet of the game, I then just continued selecting different aspects of the game, researched them intently online, and then went back and let myself cheat with everything that I still hadn't researched, but I had to play for real everything I'd already learned plus whatever I was currently learning.

I then quickly weaned myself mostly off the debug console. I still play with it, though, not to really do much with it, but I like all of the extra information you get with it just by hovering your cursor over things.

EDIT: the debug console can be accessed through the Paradox launcher before you load the game. Instead of clicking RESUME or PLAY on the main launcher screen, go to the bottom of the left menu, click on 'game settings,' and then scroll all the way down to 'open game in debug mode.' Click the little oval that says 'launch' to the right of that.

[Dante_Deepdarkness]

Originally posted by AC Denton:

You could try EU4 for an easier time. It's not as good as CK3 imo but I put 1200 hours into EU4 before I even started CK3.

That is false. CK3 is waaaaayyyy easier than EU4 to learn as of today (May 25th, 2022). The mechanics are a lot simple to learn and the game itself is too easy. Maybe in a few years your statement will be right, but not today.

Regarding the OP question. Hard to say.
The game right now can't offer much because the differences between governments, regions and religions are minimal, but due to it the learning curve it is not hard. You must consider what you already said about CK2, it is "what you will find here": You choose your start and set your goals. Once those goals are done there isn't much to do but a different start with other goals, or directly play for achievements. Only you can know if such "set up" (you decide your start and you chose your goal) is something that fits you or not.
Also note that CK series is done around characters no land/countries so despite having some map-paintism (yes, it is a faith XD), it is not supposed to be the main theme, the thing is make a good/strong/however-you-want-to-call-it dynastic tree.

[Mucc]

Well its a sandbox. You do what you want. The game wont tell you what to do it only offers you possibilities. I tell you one thing I told many new players i met irl. Play CK3 as a Sims game. Make your small nice family look how its evolves and care for your dynasty. The game quickly will try to ruin your plans. You then decide how you solve the problems. Schememing, diplomacy, war, corruption? Its up to you. Maybe as starter make yourself as character and act like you would act irl. If you for example someone who dont like cruelty you shouldnt then act like a tyran.

Or make an alt version of you and act like this alt version would handle things.

Min-maxing, war conquering dont giving a ♥♥♥♥ about nobody in your court or vassals is the wrong way honestly. First it will become boring after the second time you do it and its repetetive so you will feel burned out fast and lastly you wont have something like a memorable story if you reach the goal.

If you manage to build an large empire in 50 years but you dont know anything around you what happened, no memorable characters or storys because you skipped alot things then yeah was it worth for you then? For grand strategy this game is very simplistic and wont give you satisfaction like Eu4 or Hoi4 when you manage to build nation XY.

if you really only care for map painting Eu4 and Hoi4 are way better suited to you. CK3 is a sandbox rp game and should be playes as that. Even Ck2 was mostly played for rp. Many peeps forget this and blame then pdx for not enough content.

Yeah ofc there is not enough content if you only do warmongering around painting the map for your third roman empire approach as viking.

Be creative. Thats the difficult part of playing this game. You need creativity and immagination because the game wont tell you a story like a book.

[Sage & Poot]

If you play the included tutorial you might. It is very sandbox-ish, but the tutorial sort of trains you on how to achieve goals that you may enjoy achieving. It's definitely more RP, and less a to b win/lose.

[Twelvefield]

Crusader Kings is more character-driven than most strategic games, so you have to want to tend to your families. How do you feel about more tactical games, like the Total War or Civilization games? Old World is new to STEAM, that's something like a combination of Crusader Kings and Civilization.

[shakenidentity]

Originally posted by Za Catto:

If you manage to build an large empire in 50 years but you dont know anything around you what happened, no memorable characters or storys because you skipped alot things then yeah was it worth for you then?

If the OP were to answer YES or NO to this question, his/ her own question would be answered, methinks.