are the DLCs essential?? does it really make that big of a difference?

[ndog197]

So i recently started playing this and am still learning seeing how complex this game is. To help i have took it on myself to look up a few YouTube guides. Long story short a lot of what one of the guide was saying is DLC this and DLC that. I know its not actually mandatory or required to play the game, but do they actually make that much of a difference in game play where they are essential? If so/ if not what difference does it make?

[thebadman]

Vanillafriend here and still having a lot of fun without any DLCs... Some of them add new mechnics, some rework and expand them, some give you more options and prevent game over because you do not have some dlc on succession to DLC religion heir for example.

Some can indeed make big difference how you will play your game, first thing that comes to mind are retinues.

[The Cure]

It makes a huge difference and unlocks a ton of features. It's just a shame Paradox milked the hell out of them, including all of the graphic DLCs, like portraits and unit models etc. Vanilla vs. all DLCs is night and day. I personally don't like Aztec Invasion and Conclave, so those are the only two DLCs I will never buy.

After having them, I couldn't play this game without features like way of life focus, artifacts, societies and bloodlines, just to name a few features the many DLCs offer. The vanilla game is a grand strat with some RPG elements, but with the DLCs it's a full fledged RPG just as much as a strategy game.

The DLCs are what make this game mechanically superior to CK3. I'll have no interest in CK3 until it can catch up to what this title has (with DLC).

[galadon3]

The answer is No and Yes
No they aren't essential, the vanilla game is still a fine game buuut
Yes they make a big difference
Since they add a ton of content.

So my recommendation is play the base-game since its free anyway and when you like it start adding DLCs (or try the subscription whatever is the better model for you) since if you don't like the game without DLCs you wouldn't like it with them.

[ShepherdOfCats]

You won't know they're essential until you've tried them and realize you can never go back, lol. I will never be able to live without retinues, for example, because I like having an army of raider-smashers ready to go as soon as hostiles appear.

The DLCs do vary wildly in terms of what they change.

Some of the DLC affects only specific areas of the map. Rajas of India isn't going to be much use to you unless you plan on playing in India/Tibet. Whereas DLC like Holy Fury and Way of Life are going to alter reality as you know it across the map, regardless of who you play as.

[markeason]

Originally posted by ndog197:

So i recently started playing this and am still learning seeing how complex this game is.

Like you I am new to the game.

Furthermore, I suffer from being an old fart. So learning this game has been a hell of a challenge.

No matter how many wiki pages I read or play-throughs I watch, I still manage to royally foul-up which, thankfully, makes me laugh at my own stupidity.

My limited capacity to retain information means I will be sticking with the base game until it starts to sink in. When I am ready, I will start acquiring some of the DLC but until then, the base game is challenge enough for me.

[bri]

Originally posted by galadon3:

The answer is No and Yes
No they aren't essential, the vanilla game is still a fine game buuut
Yes they make a big difference
Since they add a ton of content.

So my recommendation is play the base-game since its free anyway and when you like it start adding DLCs (or try the subscription whatever is the better model for you) since if you don't like the game without DLCs you wouldn't like it with them.

This. I own all the gameplay DLC as I've been playing since release, some have an impact on every single playthrough, others I may as well not even own because they never matter to the games I play.

[galadon3]

Originally posted by markeason:

Originally posted by ndog197:

So i recently started playing this and am still learning seeing how complex this game is.

Like you I am new to the game.

Furthermore, I suffer from being an old fart. So learning this game has been a hell of a challenge.

No matter how many wiki pages I read or play-throughs I watch, I still manage to royally foul-up which, thankfully, makes me laugh at my own stupidity.

My limited capacity to retain information means I will be sticking with the base game until it starts to sink in. When I am ready, I will start acquiring some of the DLC but until then, the base game is challenge enough for me.

Think nothing of it, CK2 IS a LOT. I once explained it to a friend and when I was done explaining the basics I realized 3 hours were over.^^

Just jump in, play, use the wiki if you can't figure out whats going on in a situation, or take some screenshots and ask here.

[Cardolam]

For some of them in a word: YES

Which ones?

- Old Gods
- Reaper's Due
- Conclave
- Way of Life
- Holy Fury
- The Republic

[bri]

Originally posted by Cardolam:

For some of them in a word: YES

Which ones?

- Old Gods
- Reaper's Due
- Conclave
- Way of Life
- Holy Fury
- The Republic

Eh, I could easily do without Holy Fury and you pretty much have to disable ai using seduction for Way of Life to not make you crazy at times. I would add the one that enables retinues.

[galadon3]

Legacy of Rome, yes deffo one of the important ones

[markeason]

Well, as they're currently on sale - it's a good time to pick some up.

[The Cure]

Originally posted by bri:

Originally posted by Cardolam:

For some of them in a word: YES

Which ones?

- Old Gods
- Reaper's Due
- Conclave
- Way of Life
- Holy Fury
- The Republic

Eh, I could easily do without Holy Fury and you pretty much have to disable ai using seduction for Way of Life to not make you crazy at times. I would add the one that enables retinues.

LOL, Holy Fury is the most complete and comprehensive DLC Paradox has ever made for CKII.

Warrior lodges (and mods that add them to other religions/cultures), Bloodlines, Swaying individual characters, Sainthood and Veneration, Coronations, Baptisms, reworked crusades, new succession laws, custom names and nicknames for people as well as objects, new artifacts (a lot of new artifacts), and lists of people you've killed and murdered, to name a few mechanics HF added.

If you could do without that, then you could do without a ton of RPG and strategy features added in the last and final DLC and update for CKII.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

Warrior lodges are honestly unbalanced non-sense that makes the game worse for existing.

The rest is alright, but much like the societies from M&M, Lodges do more harm to the game than good because of how poorly implemented and balanced they are.

[galadon3]

also tbh quite some stuff from holy fury is kinda badly implemented, prime example I ran in was how the gender-equality rules from religious reform often don't interact well with the other elements of the game.
Shattered world has quite some elements that work very weird for special settings (epidemics for once)
Warrior Lodges, yes I'd agree that for tribals and especially for vikings they are kinda unbalanced, but my argument against seeing them as "essential" in any way would be first and foremost that they are just for a certain playstyle, while for example the changes conclave introduces or the retinues from LoR work for every kind of playstyle

And in general I DO like HF (well besides the coronations, I find appeasing the pope every time kinda tedious tbh, really wish they had added an option to turn that off).

[bri]

In addition to the above, the reworked crusades are also a joke in terms of balance, the nicknames are generally completely meaningless random nonsense rather than actually based on doing anything. The random world is just broken with regular placement of MRs in locations that aren't eligible, etc.. As I said, I can easily do without it.