crusader kings 3 or 2?

[Chopped🥀🥀🥀]

so im new to ck and was wondering 2 or 3 i would get all the (dlc for whichever one i buy)
ive played games like stellaris so ik somewhat of what this type of game is like i just want to know which one is better or has more things to do

[Lobinho]

Ck 2 has a waaaaaaayyyyyy more content and plays more like a Grand Strategy Game, BUT it has a very steep learning curve and a very clunky UI.

Ck 3 focus more on roleplaying and feels more bland in some strategy aspects, but that is (most likely) because it doesn't have the same support CK 2 had in it's cycle.

Choose whatever you feel more in tune, OP.

[RedLabel]

Hoi there laddie! If ye're lookin' to get yerself into Crusader Kings and are wonderin' whether to go for CK2 or CK3, there's a lot to consider. Both games have their merits and their flaws, and which one ye prefer will come down to yer own personal tastes.

CK2 is an older game, but it's got a lot of depth and complexity that can keep ye hooked for hours on end. It's also got a ton of DLC available, so ye can customize yer game to yer heart's content. CK3 is a newer game with improved graphics and mechanics, and it's generally considered to be more user-friendly than its predecessor.

If ye've played games like Stellaris before, ye might find the mechanics of CK2 or CK3 to be somewhat similar, but there's still a lot to learn and explore. Both games offer a ton of options and scenarios, so ye'll never run out of things to do.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ye're lookin' for in a game. If ye want a complex and challenging strategy game, CK2 might be right up yer alley. If ye want a more streamlined and modern experience, CK3 might be the way to go. Either way, ye cannae go wrong with Crusader Kings. Slainte!

[Edaryion]

I have played both. I loved CK2, but when CK3 came out & I played it for the first time, I could never go back to CK2, the difference is enormous.

The graphics, & the systems are different.
Whilst it may be true that CK2, may have more content, in the sense of DLC & mods, CK3 is not far from it, and it is certainly much more worthy.

Frankly I dislike CK2, that is how much CK3 has changed my opinion.

[Edaryion]

😅 When you type in Irish:

Originally posted by RedLabel:

Hoi there laddie! If ye're lookin' to get yerself into Crusader Kings and are wonderin' whether to go for CK2 or CK3, there's a lot to consider. Both games have their merits and their flaws, and which one ye prefer will come down to yer own personal tastes.

CK2 is an older game, but it's got a lot of depth and complexity that can keep ye hooked for hours on end. It's also got a ton of DLC available, so ye can customize yer game to yer heart's content. CK3 is a newer game with improved graphics and mechanics, and it's generally considered to be more user-friendly than its predecessor.

If ye've played games like Stellaris before, ye might find the mechanics of CK2 or CK3 to be somewhat similar, but there's still a lot to learn and explore. Both games offer a ton of options and scenarios, so ye'll never run out of things to do.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what ye're lookin' for in a game. If ye want a complex and challenging strategy game, CK2 might be right up yer alley. If ye want a more streamlined and modern experience, CK3 might be the way to go. Either way, ye cannae go wrong with Crusader Kings. Slainte!

Do not get me wrong, it is kind of adorable. 😊
😁 Also, great advice!

[Chopped🥀🥀🥀]

Originally posted by Lobinho:

Ck 2 has a waaaaaaayyyyyy more content and plays more like a Grand Strategy Game, BUT it has a very steep learning curve and a very clunky UI.

Ck 3 focus more on roleplaying and feels more bland in some strategy aspects, but that is (most likely) because it doesn't have the same support CK 2 had in it's cycle.

Choose whatever you feel more in tune, OP.

so if i want to play as a gay king who only enslaves turkish men I should go for ck 3?

[Rex is back, baby!]

Originally posted by Dr.Heintz Ketchup:

Originally posted by Lobinho:

Ck 2 has a waaaaaaayyyyyy more content and plays more like a Grand Strategy Game, BUT it has a very steep learning curve and a very clunky UI.

Ck 3 focus more on roleplaying and feels more bland in some strategy aspects, but that is (most likely) because it doesn't have the same support CK 2 had in it's cycle.

Choose whatever you feel more in tune, OP.

so if i want to play as a gay king who only enslaves turkish men I should go for ck 3?

I do not think you had to word it like that, but yes. CK3 allows for better narrative/role play power.

[Aven Oul]

Originally posted by Dr.Heintz Ketchup:

so im new to ck and was wondering 2 or 3 i would get all the (dlc for whichever one i buy)
ive played games like stellaris so ik somewhat of what this type of game is like i just want to know which one is better or has more things to do

2 3 is wwaaaaaaaaaay under developed.
the modders have literally done all the heavy lifting for this game, and the devs give us insultingly small dlcs and call them expandsions

[Ashling]

From an AI, map staring perspective:
CK2 has cool things like Rome retaking Italy but losing Anatolia & the HRE actually being form-able by the AI.

CK3 has cool things like kidnapping a foreign nation's daughter, landing her, and see her go on and take their father's throne establishing a long-lived and prestigious dynasty, & vassals who can actually fight back against you as the internal AI can put hard limits on how you play the game (it makes memorable AI rivalries & friends).

From a gameplay perspective:
CK2 allows you to do more, but at the cost of everything being a bit off. Nothing's wholly thought out and anything that can be said about CK3's poor balancing decisions can be said doubly in CK2. CK2 is also a lot more random with the average ruler's life span being between 3 minutes and 60 years (I personally like the random aspects as it can make each run feel unique).

CK3 is a lot more stable, but at the cost of challenge. Once you put a foot forward it's hard to take a step back as the game gives you a large number of ways to correct, and even prevent, most things from happening. It's a lot more chill of a game that tries to immerse you in a "medieval" life, but at the cost of making it feel less like other CK/EU/Paradox classic games: a board game where every player is trying to win.

[VoiD]

Ck3 is easier to learn, easier to master, easier to conquer the whole map, easier to never lose, etc...

Ck2 is a very hard game to learn, but once you do, it's actually quite easy, nowhere near as easy as CK3, but it's easy-ish, until RNG really ♥♥♥♥♥ your game up, also, there is several times more depth to CK2 than CK3, every mechanic they share, CK3 only does it at a very shallow, surface level.

[ShouteN]

I would say ck3, because even if 3 is not yet reached depth of 2 it will eventually and probably will be a better game.

[DerRitter]

2

[Finarfin]

Play CK2 if it's free. If you want the better game, get CK3. I've played them all since the original release of CK1, and CK3 is the best product.

[Rialm]

CK3 definitely, the future is around the corner.

If you want you could try out CK2 is free, and the subscription is 5 dollars if I'm not mistaken. But CK3 all the way.

[zeeb]

Definitely CK2.
CK3 is too woke.

[thewookiee]

Originally posted by Lobinho:

Ck 2 has a waaaaaaayyyyyy more content and plays more like a Grand Strategy Game, BUT it has a very steep learning curve and a very clunky UI.

Ck 3 focus more on roleplaying and feels more bland in some strategy aspects, but that is (most likely) because it doesn't have the same support CK 2 had in it's cycle.

Choose whatever you feel more in tune, OP.

hopefully CK 3 will have a lot of content like CK 2 it'll just take some time

what I think they should have done is theu should of taken everything from Crusader Kings 2 with a DLC and mash it up together! but that's how I think all their games should be released