Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I like the 2d style of the characters and interface a lot more. Ck3 looks like a cheap unity clone to me. It is like trying to watch those animation movies and kid's reality shows which looked much worse than the 2d animations in the late nineties but were being shoved out really hard by kid's networks because they were cheaper to produce.
Boats exist independetly from armies. Sadly regressed on this point in ck3
Missing features. Playable republics, college of cardinals, societies, traits have become stagnant because of lack of events that change them, only one start date in ck3.
What I really wanted to see was this: combat becoming actually complex, naval combat, economy improments(different currencies, improvement on trade mechanics, trade goods producion, acomulation and flow through the map), this could lead to improvement in the simulation of other social classes namely clergy and commoners.
This two social groups act like dormats in ck2 when actually they became increasingly powerfull and created interest groups capable of changeing the course of history. Italy is full of examples of this more than any other place like the visconti, malatesta, and even the famous medici family which came mix with the royal houses of france and spain/austria.
Portugal had it's entire language changed by a very influential priest, Martinho de Dume. He believed we should not celebrate christian holidays in days with pagan names. That is the reason the Portuguese language does not call it's week days "lunes, martes, mercores, venres", instead calling it the equivalent of second-day, third-day, fourth-day, fifth-day, sixth-day. In ck you kind of feel the power of the Pope because he can excumunicate you, and does so in a very borderline way in ck2 if I am to be honest... But you hardly feel like the bishops have any power at all. Before societies religious orders were not even in the game and it would be nice to see them also improved.
Orders(Military and Reiligious) were international organisations, there were Grand Masters that presided over the order in the main branch, but there were many branches in every country that were presided over by masters with often torn loyalties. Such orders played a very important role in preserving portuguese independence for example in the person of John I, Master of Avis.
A lot of what I am asking for was acomplished in this mod but with a overall of the game much more could have been done:
https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Les_Trois_Tours_/_The_three_Towers%E2%80%8B
Sorry for the long text. I really like CK.
2) republics
3) no stupid percentage progress counters for things that should be unpredictable
4) not a teenaged boy so don't really care for the nudity memes
5) teleporting troops, are you serious?
6) magically appearing ships, again, are you serious?
There are more but that's the start of the list...
You can base your opinions by referring to the recent DLCs and the creative direction of those individual DLC and whether or not they align with what CK2 represents to you.
"Hope is tomorrow's veneer over today's disappointment"
IF it makes enough money, then Paradox will churn CK3 so much that maybe enough DLCs will be produced, that maybe enough of them will be good enough to be the spiritual successor...or they cut the game development off relatively surprsingly for the wider public and focus on another game they can make more money on and they are more interested in.
Outside money making, the players are dependent on the good will of and interest to work on the game by the devs. So it's relatively arbitrary and hard to predict.
There you have your answer.
The point of DLCs is to invest less initially and making the player fear to lose out
and keep paying longterm to overall make more bucks for the company and ensure its existence longterm. Hope has no place there. It's a business.
This message got presented to you by "Honest Winter Mood".
The real question is likely rather, is CK3 the successor to CK2 in at all or are they rather different games ? Saw several people question that.
Thank you all for you input.
CK2 is currently more sandbox-y yet caters both to historicity **and** fantasy/alt historicity
And not to mention the ck3 ui despite being more adjustable for us modders, sucks terribly
The entire map has "Living Legend" level of prestige. I believe that is another factor that feeds into the "power fantasy" that is being catered for in CK3.
But just to be clear, CK3 isn't a bad game, in fact, it's a great game, it's much better than most games out there, but the contrast with it's predecessor really hurts those who know, and understood how CK2 works, it feels like a similar game, except it's missing so much that it's hard to enjoy.
Anyway, here it goes:
"CK3 "has" most of the content CK2 had, except it really doesn't, what it has is placeholders sharing the same name.
Take the most recent LoP and the clan update, you could play as clans before this update while CK2 needed a DLC (the first one) to allow you to play as a clan, so it was better, right? Well, not exactly, CK3 allowed you to pick muslin starting locations and even had a "clan system", but the system wasn't a clan at all, it was just a feudal system minus feudal contract mechanics, there was nothing about islam related to their gameplay, nothing about clans, you were just playing with a lesser version of the standard feudal christian system.
The same applies to tribes, nomads and hindus, you can, technically, pick and play those characters, but you're not playing a real tribe, or a real nomad, or a real hindu, you also can't play as a republic at all, while CK2 offers real experiences for all of them.
As an example, CK3 uses the feudal placeholder system for tribes, meaning there's a hierarchy, just like christian feudal monarchies, you get levies and taxes from your tribal "vassals" just like in feudalism, except how much they pay you is dictated by your fame instead of the feudal contract mechanics.
In CK2 a tribe doesn't have a hierarchy at all, what you have are "tribal allies", and instead of getting taxes & levies from them you can call them to wars as if they were allied nations, and they may or may not accept, if they accept you'll have a huge swarm of low quality troops as they can bring 100% of their army to help you, if they don't, tough luck. Tribes also have no real economy, while in CK3 they can make a lot more money than feudals, due to not having such low limitations on tax due to contracts, in CK2 they really make NO money, so they really need to raid, constantly, to survive, which reminds me that there are 2 types of tribals, the offensive ones, with natural traits to improve raiding, or overseas raiding like vikings, and the defensive ones, stuck raiding their closest neighbors, but with ungodly attrition and army defensive bonuses on their own lands, making them very hard to conquer, meanwhile CK3 has, as usual, nothing of the sort.
Speaking of low quality troops, there's a clear divide between the levies from tribals and the levies from feudal armies, tribes are mostly light infantry, they can create huge numbers, which makes sieging very easy, but they suck in combat, regular feudal levies are far more dangerous than tribal armies, while in CK3 everyone uses a troop type called "levy" and they are all equally worthless and wiped out instantly by any decent man at arms regiment, or spacemarine knight with over 30 prowess.
As for the remaining systems, they aren't even acknowledged so they don't have any mehcanics at all, they are all treated like regular feudal or regular tribal instead, while in CK2 nomads don't have settlements, they have population and pop growth instead, which they can use to fuel their army & economy, and they need vast, clear lands to grow further, they also have a clan system within their khaganate with blood brothers and sworn enemy clans, they also get to create special tributaties which are act like regular vassals/allies they can abuse, with very, very high taxes, but are easily lost upon succession.
Republics and trade also add a whole new dimension to the game, you don't even need to play AS a republic to enjoy the benefits of creating a republic within your kingdom and help them take the trade nodes around your coast, or capture more trade from important locations within the silk road, or gold mines, CK2 doesn't have republics at all, and it doesn't have these trade posts or trade mechanics.
We're also skipping on the sainthood, bloodlines, societies, council, epidemic, prosperity, and all the other things missing entirely from CK2, along with very fun legendary or unique events such as suddenly getting hints that your child might be the antichrist, creating an unbelievably powerful heir that will most likely kill all of his brothers, and possibly you, before adulthood, or a child of destiny growting up to be a great conqueror like Alexander the Great.
I could go on, but you get the idea, CK3 isn't even close to half of what CK2 was in terms of content quality or quantity, it's a neat game, easy for beginners, but it really feels like playing a very, very, very simple version of another game.
As for warfare, well, I'll leave a post from Steam here:" I disagree with CK3 combat not being simplistic.
Sure, all of the mechanics you have mentioned are there, and they could matter, hipothetically, against a player to varying degrees but out of all Paradox games CK3 is the simplest game, which is a great feat considering the EU4 combat system is pretty much a board game translated to a digital setting.
What annoys me, and I suppose many others, is the fact that CK3 went from possibly the most complex and interesting combat system Paradox ever made from CK2, to the blandest, simplest version, where one side just basically throws damage against the other side and that's all there is to it.
To give a sense of comparisson, the CK2 system was based on tactics: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Combat_tacticsThese had to be triggered based on troop composition, meaning chosing which troops you wanted to raise was more important than simply stacking the best number, or trying to counter a specific troop, but also that depending on which tactics your troop composition would allow, certain units could be greatly boosted, while others could be greatly hindered by your own planning.
Take light cavalry and horse archers, there are plenty of ways to stack damage bonuses for both of these, flat terrain expert is good on both, cav leader is also good for both, and there are some retinues using both of these units, but if you don't pay attention to what you're doing you could start triggering tactics that could take out half of your army from the fight, such as Volley Harass Tactic which would boost light cav by +100% while reducing horse archers -180%
Then there were the combat phases, all combat would start in the skirmish phase, where units like archers, HA and LC are king and they can deal a ton of damage, eventually combat would enter the melee phase, there these units lose most of their relevance when melee units start to shine, heavy infantry, heavy cavalry, pikemen are monsters in this stage. This matters because of troop composition, IE: A roman or italian Heavy infantry/pikemen army would be very powerful in the melee phase, meaning they'd never win battles instantly as they would always have to wait for quite some time to close in and start fighting the enemy in melee, while the skirmish focused armies could outperform these armies by near-instantly breaking their enemies before they got to the melee phase.
That is, of course, if you pay attention to the commander's personalities, after all, military traits are all very powerful and relevant to battles, sure, but their personality and culture can also influence how they fight, certain tactics can only be triggered by certain cultures or certain people, IE: Aggressive or Wrothful commanders can order a Reckless charge, which can be neat for heavy cavalry, but it can get all of your HI and LC killed in the process, as a charge tactic it also forces the combat phase to switch to melee, meaning that idiot aggressive son you let lead an important LC flank just sent them all to die in melee where they can't do anything, have no tactics, and can't deal any damage, as LC is only supposed to be relevant in the skirmish phase.
Needless to say, this is also quite important for the roleplay value where commander's personalities can greatly affect what and how they fight in battle, radically changing the outcome of every battle.
Of course, we're just covering tactics here, we could go on about flank formations, using defensive commanders on weakened flanks with combat width reductions to hold the line while a greater force tries to push through from another flank, how to groom a perfect military leader which is a very different process from simply picking a lifestyle tree and waiting 20 years to turn into sun tzu, the commander (https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Commander), flank commander and sub commander mechanics, the later being very important as most people don't even know it existed.
I mean, sure, there was room to expand the system, give players more control to fine tune their armies and such, but they aren't on the same level, they aren't even on the same plane of existence, playing with this system knowing what we lost can be a very depressing experience. Even the HoI3/HoI4 systems, while they have more modifiers in play, weren't as deep as what CK2 had, they just allow for more player control.""
Edit: To address future posts asking why I want the same game remade, I don't, I wasn't expecting Ck3 to be just like CK2, I was expecting it to be better, having all the features from CK2 was never the endgoal, it was the starting line, republics and trade posts should be upgraded to account for individual goods kingdoms could fight over, the council could have actual personal long term goals instead of simply wanting more power, warfare could have more ways to fine tune your regular levies so you could prepare your tactics with more than just your retinues, prosperity should grow in more ways than simply being at peace for long enough and avoiding war/diseases etc.. But we don't even have the basic form of any of these mechanics.
The point you made about how all these govt types currently available are just the Feudal govt copy pasted all over the map -- deserves a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ award, too bad I'm broke to afford any atm. :P
Also the generic levy unit type in CK3, its existence makes my blood boil.
In CK2 different cultures would field entirely unique unit compositions due to levies not being restricted to one unit. In contrast, every culture in CK3 has an army that comprises of 99% generic levy and 1% whatever the AI chooses as men at arms. You could be fighting the Turks and you hover over their armies and see that they're no different than your Norse army.
I'm so frustrated now that you've mentioned this LOL How are people not outraged about this complete downgrade of a system is beyond me. I guess now recalling a comment I saw recently wouldn't surprise me at all that no one is pointing this.
"I feel like CK3 is slowly becoming a glorified dress up, family sim game"
"It's been that way from the get-go
All of the CK3 players I know IRL are former Sims players that became disillusioned with EA"
they're catering for this group of people apparently as a way to appeal to a larger audience, with the oversight of marginalising their existing loyal/veteran playerbase.
Problem is it pays, one meme-pic of a fat naked king posted often enough sells em more copies then any well thought out game-system. Even though the lolololol-people buying it might not play the game more then 20 minutes.
And yes ofc the sims-fans, who luckily for pdx also buy all their overpriced DLC-fodder too.