What is exactly is fun about Crusader Kings III?

[Thiri]

I am new to Crusader Kings series but I have thousands of hours on EU 4, Vic 2, Hoi3, Hoi4 and Stellaris and I find all of them "fun" in their own ways. Eu4 has great diplomacy system, vic2 has the best economic simulation, hoi has detailed war mechanics and in stellaris it has interesting scifi stories and you can commit genocide or enforce slavery. In a similar manner, can people tell me what exactly is fun about Crusader Kings?

So far I played as one of the dukes in Ireland (starting 1066) and became the King of Ireland with my first ruler. After the first ruler died I basically did nothing for like a 150 years other than upgrading my home province and fighting a couple of succession wars. I wasn't able to expand or at least I did not find conquering more land cost effective(wars could be costly and you can only have like 5-7 holds under your direct controls and it becomes harder to keep all your vassals happy). It was until I got high crown authority that I was able to effectively conquer Scotland and England and form the Emperor of Alba(Britannia) in late 1200s. I started in 1066 and it took me 150 years to get high crown authority so that I don't move five steps forward and four steps backwards when my character dies. I'd imagine conquering to be much less cost effective for people starting at 867. I never intended to conquer the world and I only want to have my hegemony but still I find conquering in ck3 not nearly as rewarding as it is in other games. Am I playing the game wrong?

Some says it is a role playing game. While I don't dislike the role playing features, I'd like my character to have kinda similar personality as I do or at least not the exact opposite. I know it is a game but I still don't like to make decisions in game that I would despise in real life just to make my character happy. Is there a way around that so your character would be more like you?

[Klutch]

every once in awhile you should have a character you can relate to

[Thor's Wrath]

I know what you mean, at first the conquering part the CK series feels "weird", with having vassals and having to keep them happy, but once you lean into it, this is where the fun is.

The mechanics of the game are geared towards interacting with the other characters, increasing their opinion of you, making them feat you or assassinating them to reach your goals.

Managing crisis like successions and vassals rebellions is part of the game.

As to making the character more like you, did you try the ruler designer? After your first character, you have to marry in such a way to get the heir with the traits that you want. Of course, it can be a bit of a hit or miss, as genetics usually are.

I would say playing as Ireland you should also embrace tanistry and figure out ways to put the heir that you want on the throne. Again, this goes back to diplomacy, intimidation or revoking titles and installing vassals more favorable to you so they will vote your way.

The game actually loses a lot of the fun for me the closer I get to absolute control. In my current run I started with Scotland in 867, created Britannia around 950 and became the strongest army in the game around 1100. I'm now in 1200, winning crusades single handly and the next 3 kingdoms combined can't touch me. My vassals are terrified of me and I have absolute crown authority with high partition so succession is a breeze. I'm happy with what I've achieved, but it's also getting kinda boring...

[Turian14]

CK3 is way more fun if you roleplay what your character would do. You aren't playing a nation but a person. Treating the game like EU4 will leave you bored thats not where the fun is.

[Thiri]

Thanks for the advise! I think I have been playing more or less like medieval EU4 in the past and that is probably why I missed the fun part. I will give it another try.

[Bogdan]

Best way i can explain it, its like a movie/tv show/book. You won't always get a character that reminds you of you but there will be some that you love, hate, feel bad for, find boring etc...The game is about characters and choices that leads to a story/experience, obviously you can play the game in a grand strategy classical style and try to own as much territory as possible but usually you will experience the most amazing stories when things aren't going your way. Once you satisfied your conqueror apetite id recommend going Ironman mode and letting the sails take you to wherever the wind goes.

Some of the most dull gameplay to me for example happened when i was owning everyone nation by nation and ''Tried'' to use meta to get a great character as my heir, its very hard to do that to get exactly what you want but there are ways.

But by far the most fun campaigns were where i was either losing, was a vassal to someone much more powerful, or just straight up roleplayed as my ruler would play depending on his perks and traits. The game also rewards you from playing that way by the way.

[Thiri]

Also which characters would you guys recommend me to try next?

[Bogdan]

A more tipical start that is highly recommended but i can confirm is very fun would either be Björn Ironside of Uppland in the 867 start or Jarl Rurik of Holmgarđr, also 867 start.

A more obscure suggestion that i highly recommend tho once you get some confidence is being a count and vassal of any of the bigger kingdoms at the start of the game (867 start). Il highlight West Francia, East Francia and the Byzantine Empire as my personal favorites.

[Sam]

I won't comment on CK3 specifically but CK series has by far the best character system across Paradox games and I played each of them since EU2. Rulers actually become the key aspect in the series like how industry is the key aspect in Vicky series. I however feel letdown by CK3 in general after CK2 with all the bells and whistles so won't try to sell it.

[Thiri]

Thanks for all your advice and I gave ck3 another try. I ironmaned Jarl Rurik of Holmgarđr in 867 and formed Russia in like 100 years and then focused on developing the empire for another 200 years. Converted to Orthodox in like 1000 and went feudal in like 1060. Now is 1165, my empire contains most of Russian Empire in 1900 minus Crimea and regions east of the default Russia (so default Russia plus Baltic states, most of Finland, default Lithuania and half of Poland). I barely fought any wars myself after 1000 and I am pleasantly surprised that my vassals expanded the empire for me (I put my own dynasty on all the kingdoms except Lithuania). My tech/culture and average development fascination is about on par with that of Sweden and eastern European culture (a little behind western Europeans and way behind Byzantine). I got a character with learning skill ended up at 52 and he ruled for 54 years so I caught up with the west during that time. Still my Empire is the largest and none of the neighbors is a threat to me (Byzantine is more powerful but they like me a ton). I had to occasionally murder my children before I got rid of confederate partition, which isn't the most fun part for me but i guess Ironman did add some fun into the game since it forces you to plan things carefully.

I could just keep playing. Maybe my empire could fall into pieces if i am not careful enough or if i got really bad luck but overall I am facing much less challenges at this point. I will probably start another save (most likely Ironman) and which character would you recommend me to play as? I'd start at 867 with a bit different experience from either Tzar of Russia or King of Ireland (not necessarily harder)

[Uncle Supplies]

You can bang your daughter.

[Rheinmetall]

can people tell me what exactly is fun about Crusader Kings?

The only two things I find enjoyable about the game are:

1. Going for world domination in the most ridiculous way possible and see how far you get, i.e. found a new religion that is basically LaVeyan Satanism but still fundamentalist and with you as the head of faith. Complete some origin-based events (like Norse can dismantle the papacy).

2. Hunt achievements