I'm huge fan of both CK2 and the up and coming EU4.
In CK2 the "states within" is handled with these great vassal mechanics, with levies and opinion, determined by your crown authority, tech, traits, diplomacy and other laws and factors. In EU3 it was only handled as random "noble revolts" and for some it was handled extremely ahistorical, for instance France. In CK2 the (in EU3 independent duchies) would be handled as vassals with altering opinions and low crown authority. In EU3 they are handled as indenpendent states (still vassals though) you have to diplo-annex one at a time, instead of a general increase in centralizing the power structure around Paris and the king. The territories that France starts with still had lots of indenpendent nobles, with vast territories and estates, but they will only be represented as territory owned by France, and oh yeah, for some random reasons some random duke will revolt as a weak "noble revolt" army without any clue to what' it's doing. The system EU3 uses (and judging by the diaries EU4) is ahistorical and lousy. CK2's system gives you the perfect picture of what's going on and why among your vassals.
Of course you can't have a complete vassal system as in CK2, but the EU3 system is simply s... And even if whatever startsetup it uses gives the right outcome 100 years late, it's still miserable, because it doesn't give the possibilities and clarity that would increase the fun of the game. As England I'd like to see that Lancaster and York will fight for the throne because of my poor skills and lack of heir, not just get some prescripted event. Why couldn't the same have happened to anyone? And as the english player I should be able to see that this conflict is brewing, and try to prevent (or not) instead of reading the scripted event and see which factors does what. In general I'm against unique and historical events. The results of these events, should be able to happen to anyone under the right circumstances, and some nations (like England) will already live up to most of these factors before it happens.
Random noble revolts happens a lot in EU3, nobody knows why. Nobody knows which noble leads this army, and odd enough, he's besieging his own province, and no other nobles help him, and so on...
In CK2 you have a strong noble revolting, why? He has a claim on your throne, or he wants more autonomy, or indenpendence. He's the Duke of Champagne, so of course all of his estates in Champagne is already under his control. He's child friends with the duke of Aquitaine and Provence, because they are all three zealous, humble and charitable, so they join too. His cousin is the duke of Gascony so he's in on it too. This revolt already controls four duchies and four allied but indenpendent armies are marching towards you. In EU3, you have -2 stability, and every now and then some random 5k army rises in some province due to revolt risk, and because of other factors it's supposedely a noble revolt, but there's not anything noble to it, and he must quite lowly ranked because you've never heard of him. Players want realism, historical correct start setup, plausible possibilities instead of unrealistic lock of certain features to certain nations, and players want clarity. Why does he do that, and why do they revolt and why is anything as it is.
But probably we'll get the usual King answer, that we're morons wanting the impossible and that we dont know s... about anything, and that he and Paradox are right about everything (like the Pope) and that we are lucky Paradox will take our money, and we don't have any right to expect anything from the product we buy.
In CK2 the "states within" is handled with these great vassal mechanics, with levies and opinion, determined by your crown authority, tech, traits, diplomacy and other laws and factors. In EU3 it was only handled as random "noble revolts" and for some it was handled extremely ahistorical, for instance France. In CK2 the (in EU3 independent duchies) would be handled as vassals with altering opinions and low crown authority. In EU3 they are handled as indenpendent states (still vassals though) you have to diplo-annex one at a time, instead of a general increase in centralizing the power structure around Paris and the king. The territories that France starts with still had lots of indenpendent nobles, with vast territories and estates, but they will only be represented as territory owned by France, and oh yeah, for some random reasons some random duke will revolt as a weak "noble revolt" army without any clue to what' it's doing. The system EU3 uses (and judging by the diaries EU4) is ahistorical and lousy. CK2's system gives you the perfect picture of what's going on and why among your vassals.
Of course you can't have a complete vassal system as in CK2, but the EU3 system is simply s... And even if whatever startsetup it uses gives the right outcome 100 years late, it's still miserable, because it doesn't give the possibilities and clarity that would increase the fun of the game. As England I'd like to see that Lancaster and York will fight for the throne because of my poor skills and lack of heir, not just get some prescripted event. Why couldn't the same have happened to anyone? And as the english player I should be able to see that this conflict is brewing, and try to prevent (or not) instead of reading the scripted event and see which factors does what. In general I'm against unique and historical events. The results of these events, should be able to happen to anyone under the right circumstances, and some nations (like England) will already live up to most of these factors before it happens.
Random noble revolts happens a lot in EU3, nobody knows why. Nobody knows which noble leads this army, and odd enough, he's besieging his own province, and no other nobles help him, and so on...
In CK2 you have a strong noble revolting, why? He has a claim on your throne, or he wants more autonomy, or indenpendence. He's the Duke of Champagne, so of course all of his estates in Champagne is already under his control. He's child friends with the duke of Aquitaine and Provence, because they are all three zealous, humble and charitable, so they join too. His cousin is the duke of Gascony so he's in on it too. This revolt already controls four duchies and four allied but indenpendent armies are marching towards you. In EU3, you have -2 stability, and every now and then some random 5k army rises in some province due to revolt risk, and because of other factors it's supposedely a noble revolt, but there's not anything noble to it, and he must quite lowly ranked because you've never heard of him. Players want realism, historical correct start setup, plausible possibilities instead of unrealistic lock of certain features to certain nations, and players want clarity. Why does he do that, and why do they revolt and why is anything as it is.
But probably we'll get the usual King answer, that we're morons wanting the impossible and that we dont know s... about anything, and that he and Paradox are right about everything (like the Pope) and that we are lucky Paradox will take our money, and we don't have any right to expect anything from the product we buy.
