CK2 is a better strategy game than CK3. Am I right?

[rice^]

CK2 is a better strategy game than CK3. Am I right?
I am new to CK and I actually think CK2 is a better strategy game. For you pros out there can you tell me if I'm right?

In short it seems CK3 gives you too much control (albeit I prefer the CK2 ui), too much predictability and information, claims are handed out so easily undermining much of the marriage game. The way levies are so weak in CK3 completely undermines vassal management, moreover everyone loves you to death. Most of the new or revamped systems in CK3 don't add strategy just more ways to win faster and easier. Bottom line: the game is poorly designed as a strategy game.

[Dude]

How many times will this question be raised in this forum? Boooring

[shiggies713]

ck2 is also roughly $500 at full retail price with all dlc, or at least it was when it was new.

ck3 I bought with all current dlc for $50. Shouldn't be comparable really yet.

I agree the ui sucks in ck3.

[VoiD]

Yes, it's not even possible to compare the 2 games, but, as it was said above, there's also a wide gap in price.

But it still makes people wonder why should they bother playing a lesser game when a better one already exists.

[Lazarus]

meh, I think the base CK2 game is much better than ck3

[Natasha]

Better in every sense of the word, better interface, better strategy and tactics, better and more expanded minimap modes, better interface, way better dlc, laughs just a little bit. Better artwork and textures.

Paradox is just getting lazier and greedier and more modernized which translate into=average games where you sit and watch the game play itself.

They don't deserve to be called Grand Strategy anymore, just strategy, that's the differences.

[billy]

Originally posted by Natasha:

Better in every sense of the word, better interface

now that is nonsense , CK2 interface is awful . CK3 is so much easier to find things with all the hyperlinks. They did a great job in CK3 with the UI and how easy it is to find stuff.

I have a lot more fun with CK3 than CK2 , CK3 isnt better but i think its a lot more fun as a sandbox. And after 15 DLC and 10 years of development or whatever CK2 had , it will be a better game as well as more fun.5

"better DLC " , as one game has hardly any DLC and one has a giant mountain of DLC is a silly comparison. Some of the CK2 DLC where an absolute scam with almost no content.

[Dufflebags]

Good thing CK2 is still here for everyone to enjoy!

Although you wouldn't think it with how passionately people tell you what you should and should not enjoy.

[jpinard]

CK3 interface is more usable, but the CK2 interface had way wayyy more options which was nice. The graphics in CK2 are way worse. While I agree with the gameplay assessments, the graphical part of your arguments aren't in line. I can actually read the text in CK3 at a high resolution which is nice.

[Machiavelli]

its a good roleplaying game. not strategy.

[JC]

OP, CKII and CKIII have different mechanics. Some folks like what CKII has, others like CKIII. in CKII you can paint the world and basically set a goal and do it. That does not scream hard to me. In CKIII it's a little bit easier due to some different rules and being new it has more loopholes/exploits and a bit of power gaming that can make it a bit easier to play than CKII. CKII is NOT hard once you learn to play, this game on the other hand is a bit easier to learn not because it's less complicated but because the game just works much better. Part of why CKII is harder is the games DLC really tacted things on in odd ways. The game became the new model over many years. It did not start out with a 10 year design doc and it shows.

If you try to play the game in a normal fashion and play your ruler like you think they would.. aka you have a shy, craven, weakling, generous ruler.. your not out war mongering and yanking titles from everyone.. (just one minor expample). Play the game legit as if your really a ruling dynasty. Not break every rule of life because it's a game.

In the end Both games can be a challenge, especially for someone new.

Originally posted by Dufflebags:

Good thing CK2 is still here for everyone to enjoy!

Although you wouldn't think it with how passionately people tell you what you should and should not enjoy.

Who is going over to the CK2 forums telling them not to play the game and should move on to CKIII? I don't see that at all..

I do see people a small number of people posting constantly on CKIII telling them how it sucks and CKII is way better though..


How ironic.

Originally posted by My Lord of Fellington:

its a good roleplaying game. not strategy.

If you want a good strategy game, Play chess.

[Daonar]

Yes

/thread

[_bbg_]

I find it just as easy to snowball in CK2. Maybe some of the things you can do are buried or are harder to find in the UI so it seems more complex, but it really isn't.

CK3 could fix some of the problems it has but I'm sure it won't. I would get rid of the dynasty head interactions and fix the military system (men-at-arms are ridiculous). CK3 also needs deadlier diseases because it's way too easy for every ruler to have a long reign when some sudden deaths would make the game more interesting (like would happen in CK2).

[Reor]

Wait CK 2 and 3 are Strategy games?

Crap, now my nearly 1k hours in them feel wasted.
I played them wrong all this time, thinking that they are Roleplaying games that got some Strategy elements slaped on top of them.

[Damedius]

Man CK 2 Fanboi's can't stop stalking CK 3. It lives rent free in their heads.

[FredDie]

CK3 is still just bare DLC platform...2-3 years (read 150E) later CK3 will be better.