Is this game even about crusader kings anymore?

[The Impractical Engineer]

I dont htink so based off the latest devdiary.

[Half-lidded Bruiser]

Sounds like you just heard about the next DLC, CHINA! Or maybe you just heard about CK2 having TRADE! I, too, am informed by this information.

[Razorblade]

The game wasn't about crusader kings to begin with; it's just a catchy, medieval-y name. The game launched with two start dates: the 867 start date is about the Great Heathen Army, and the 1066 start date is about William the Conqueror. Neither Vikings nor William the Conqueror are famous for going on crusades, as you are likely aware.

You could maybe argue that the addition of the 1187 start date with the Roads to Power expansion, 20 years into the series' lifespan, finally made the name accurate by featuring Baldwin V as a prominent character, but at that point, it's far too late to see the Crusades as anything but an afterthought to the series.

[Kapika96]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

The game wasn't about crusader kings to begin with; it's just a catchy, medieval-y name. The game launched with two start dates: the 867 start date is about the Great Heathen Army, and the 1066 start date is about William the Conqueror. Neither Vikings nor William the Conqueror are famous for going on crusades, as you are likely aware.

You could maybe argue that the addition of the 1187 start date with the Roads to Power expansion, 20 years into the series' lifespan, finally made the name accurate by featuring Baldwin V as a prominent character, but at that point, it's far too late to see the Crusades as anything but an afterthought to the series.

This game wasn't no, but the series absolutely was about Crusader Kings to begin with.

[MDCCC]

Imporator Rome was the precurser to what Ck3 was going to be. Navy, trade, pops, everything. Graphics. But Since I.R flopped hard on launch and even post launch it didn't fair well. Paradox cut their losses, stripped Ck3 of much core mechanics, toned down the quality of the map and other mechanics and focused in stead on turning Ck3 into a RolePlay game.

Which I recall some Paradox devs said that they "love the Roleplay" features of Ck3. Paradox has allocated lesser quality devs to Ck3 who find more joy in role play mechanics then actual core mechanics. We still lack so much for the game but they focus on role play.

They reused the "Struggle" mechanic several times already and claim it's a "new mechanic" every time but it really is just the struggle mechanic. The one single redeeming factor for Ck3 like, 2-3 years ago I think. Was mods. Ck3 was in a bad spot, it hadn't faired well with DLC, hadn't been getting updates.

ANd only good thing that the came produced, funny enough not by paradox but modders. Modders alone saved the game because they had to create and innovate with what they had. Something paradox will not do unless there is money involved. Modders did it for free with passion.

With the likes of Elder Kings, Game of Thrones and some other mods too. That drew in more people, then add a chinese got global access to steam while ago and they have since flooded many paradox games. That also created a large new pool of income, a chinese mod was made to have the pacific side of the map (China-japan). And paradox saw money. That is what is the new DLC for adding china for.

Even now mods have been doing more for the game. Paradox has released a few "mechanics" but strictly more focused on "Role play". I am greatly dissapointed as the time period the game is in, so much combat took place and yet combat is also looked over, and not great. Combat is a mess and a hastle late game.

Roman DLC (East Rome) but covers not a single thing about East Rome for the time periods their combat, their military, and institutions. It could have been a "Combat" major overhaul DLC. Generals as "knights" of armys, with civil war sprinkled in.

No navy, no boats, nothing. Europa 5 has drawn what is not stuck to the floor with nails. So ck3 is just, chugging along spearheaded by mods. I would rather a combat over haul DLC, that focuses on actual mechanics.

We could have had senete, rules, institutions court politics, court back stabbings and rulings. Rulings of laws, and governing of land with mechanics from Stellaris which has a vast ammount of political/ governmental things to pull from. No, Paradox just values Roleplay, because the devs focused on Ck3, are more Sim4/ Role play over mechanics.

If the game had actual mechanics added, new things. This means modders can do more stuff, and if modders can do more, more sales and more intrest comes to the game. Plague update was a flop a mechanic that nobody liked or wanted.


Paradox justifies not adding mechanics and new things to Ck3 under the bases of "Well look here, we added a new mechanic but none of you liked it. So we're going back to role play stuff. If you want new mechanics. Like it or hate it, works or not. You better buy it. Or else we won't make more mechanics".

Thats their motto.

[jpcerutti]

I don't believe they have removed them from the game.

If you don't like a DLC, for whatever reason, do not buy it. They do (and will in the future) develop it in whatever direction people will pay for.

[Harris]

Originally posted by MDCCC:

Paradox justifies not adding mechanics and new things to Ck3 under the bases of "Well look here, we added a new mechanic but none of you liked it. So we're going back to role play stuff. If you want new mechanics. Like it or hate it, works or not. You better buy it. Or else we won't make more mechanics".

By making CK3 an RPG they largely defined what kind of expansions such game could have. When you're playing a character, you want your gameplay be a story of continuous growth, like you would in Skyrim or Gothic. Now, imagine Skyrim was randomly wiping your saves, would you be pissed? I know I would.

All those harm events, feuds (with the AI unable to represent a rivalry in any other way than spamming murder schemes) and plagues were stillborn, as just like Hannibal's elephants in Caesar 3, they served no purpose other than disrespecting the player's time. Heck, the very concept of your character's mortality is at odds with RPG genre, with popular mods like Elder Kings and Princes of Darkness all sharing a common theme of letting you achieve immortality in some way.

So CK3 is kinda doomed to be the game where I'd want that sex DLC that was put to vote a few years back much more than I'd want "rule of law" or some such. A senate in such a game would just be a distraction from getting to know your sister better.

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

This game wasn't no, but the series absolutely was about Crusader Kings to begin with.

CK1 was about being a feudal European monarch. The Crusades were an optional, infrequent side activity, and they have remained that way for two decades. They are certainly not a core feature worth naming the series after, and they never were.

Once again, William the Conqueror, the main character of the default start date for every Crusader Kings game, never went on a Crusade. No king really did until the 3rd Crusade. If the devs cared that much about making the title factually correct, they would have set the games during the Kings' Crusade. Of course, they did not care, because it was just a catchy name that vaguely evokes the Middle Ages.

[CrUsHeR]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

The game wasn't about crusader kings to begin with; it's just a catchy, medieval-y name. The game launched with two start dates: the 867 start date is about the Great Heathen Army, and the 1066 start date is about William the Conqueror. Neither Vikings nor William the Conqueror are famous for going on crusades, as you are likely aware.

Think like the Grand Theft Auto series. Maybe the first game was about a car thief, but the later entries only have it as an optional side mechanic.

Where Roman in GTA4 was still a shabby immigrant in NYC, Michael in GTA5 already starts out as a wealthy ex-criminal in an LA luxury residence. And Franklin works at car repossession, not stealing cars but returning them to their legal owner.

The name stuck, though.

Haven't even played CK1, but apparently it wasn't before several CK2 DLCs when the scope of the game was vastly expanded beyond the crusades. With enhanced roleplay elements, and the map spanning to Mongolia, India and West Africa.

Yet again, once a brand name is established, you don't really change the name anymore. Unless it started out really stupid, like - let's say the game had been called "Fluffy Kings", they might have reconsidered that.

[JPow's Rate Hike]

No.

It's The Sims but set in the middle ages.

[King of Liquor]

Pretty sure they wanted to name it game of thrones but you know how that would go lol

[Zordiark Darkeater]

Originally posted by 844 FICO Credit Score:

No.

It's The Sims but set in the middle ages.

Always has been

[Teefl-ling]

It's a great game, and I know that I and a lot of other players (I won't speculate on how many, or what percentage of the playerbase we are, but I know it's a sizeable group)

Are *SUPER* excited for AUH and for other non-Crusade DLC. I think my tastes are pretty catholic (that is, all-encompassing, pun intended) and I enjoy playing in pretty much any part of the map, I like AUH and I'm confident that even though the Crusades and Western Europe in general aren't my go-tos or entirely within my sphere of interest I will enjoy the inevitable HRE DLC, the investiture, trade, republics, etc that will no doubt be focused on Europe?

We got a poll not too long ago asking us questions about: Da Pope, and about Trade/Republics

I wholeheartedly expect the next chapter after this to hone in on the west. Western Europe already has a *massive* amount of content compared to other places, but it will doubtless get even more, and I ain't gonna complain, content is content.

[ItachiDeltaForce]

well its definitely a medieval grand strategy simulator with all the bells & whistles ...& gives u all the vibes, atmosphere & immersion of medieval culture/life style

thats good enough for me

[cdplayer906]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

The game wasn't about crusader kings to begin with; it's just a catchy, medieval-y name. The game launched with two start dates: the 867 start date is about the Great Heathen Army, and the 1066 start date is about William the Conqueror. Neither Vikings nor William the Conqueror are famous for going on crusades, as you are likely aware.

You could maybe argue that the addition of the 1187 start date with the Roads to Power expansion, 20 years into the series' lifespan, finally made the name accurate by featuring Baldwin V as a prominent character, but at that point, it's far too late to see the Crusades as anything but an afterthought to the series.

and the crusades have never even worked properly!

[Puppet Pal Clem]

It's not like expanding the map is gonna stop them from adding and fixing up crusades. I'm hyped to play as mongols and push eastwards in conquest once i'm done taking over eastern europe.