• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
> after playing 6 campaigns since release

Maybe this is the problem? I imagine if I played 6 campaigns I'd also feel like I've already seen all there is to see in this game many times. But I'm still on my first and so I'm having lots of fun. By the time I finish it there'll hopefully be an update and then I'll have enough new stuff in my next campaign for it to feel different from the first. And if the update doesn't come soon enough, there are plenty of other great games to play in the meanwhile. But if you just play the same game over and over, no wonder you would feel like the variety is lacking.
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
> after playing 6 campaigns since release

Maybe this is the problem? I imagine if I played 6 campaigns I'd also feel like I've already seen all there is to see in this game many times. But I'm still on my first and so I'm having lots of fun. By the time I finish it there'll hopefully be an update and then I'll have enough new stuff in my next campaign for it to feel different from the first. And if the update doesn't come soon enough, there are plenty of other great games to play in the meanwhile. But if you just play the same game over and over, no wonder you would feel like the variety is lacking.

My campaigns usually end after a very short time because I am quickly able to reach my goals. So 6 campaigns isn't really that much.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
> after playing 6 campaigns since release

Maybe this is the problem? I imagine if I played 6 campaigns I'd also feel like I've already seen all there is to see in this game many times. But I'm still on my first and so I'm having lots of fun. By the time I finish it there'll hopefully be an update and then I'll have enough new stuff in my next campaign for it to feel different from the first. And if the update doesn't come soon enough, there are plenty of other great games to play in the meanwhile. But if you just play the same game over and over, no wonder you would feel like the variety is lacking.
How are you still on your first? How little do you play?
 
How are you still on your first? How little do you play?

If you a newby on you playing a campaign over at least 400 years it can take up to 70 to 100 hours if you don't have the game on max speed all the time....

My first CK3 playthrough was about 60 hours and I only played from 1066 to 1290 (I lost motivation after I had three empires).....I took my time....and experimented around a little.....
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
If you a newby on you playing a campaign over at least 400 years it can take up to 70 to 100 hours if you don't have the game on max speed all the time....

My first CK3 playthrough was about 60 hours and I only played from 1066 to 1290 (I lost motivation after I had three empires).....I took my time....and experimented around a little.....
It seems you have played more than me in that case. My campaigns last around 5-10 hours at most. I always stop playing at the empire tier because there isn't anything left to do at that point.

I'm actually curious to know if there were any suprises in the late game? Did the dynasty bonuses spice up the gameplay? Does it become harder to manage your realm?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It seems you have played more than me in that case. My campaigns last around 5-10 hours at most. I always stop playing at the empire tier because there isn't anything left to do at that point.

I'm actually curious to know if there were any suprises in the late game? Did the dynasty bonuses spice up the gameplay? Does it become harder to manage your realm?

Surprises? Not really, but by playing so long and playing with many different characters with different traits I noticed that you get different resolution options for events. I wouldn't say the dynasty bonuses spice up the gameplay, they maybe make it a little easier. And eventually you have all super human heirs with a bunch of top notch genial traits. And of course you eventually have most innovations unlocked.....huge armies with tons of knights and MaAs and stuff.
 
Steam says I have 1200 hours in CK2 and I know its a bit higher because I played a few campaigns without internet and I have less than 100 hours in CK3. However anyone expecting CK3 to rival CK2 in terms pf content is deluding themselves. CK2 had a full development cycle then near 8 years of constant development giving many big expansions an free patches adding much to the game over the years.

CK3 was never going to have the depth and complexity in some areas., but I do think CK3 is by far the better base game and has much more potential to be the superior game in the end when it has recived all the love and attention CK2 had over the years.

In short both are great games in their own right and both will have a place on my computer for years to come, but I think eventually CK3 will be by far the better experience.

- I was playing as Zoro Persia and went to war with ERE. At this point, I was already a very large kingdom and in all other PDX games you have to coordinate all your troops to the border. That was a challenge in itself. But now I simply click put up a rallying point, click raise levies, and all my troops are conveniently placed at the border.
While I do have some criticisms of the CK3 army gathering system, particularly when it comes to teleporting MaAs, it is still *much* better than the CK2 one. Collecting all your troops at the border is not a challenge, it's a chore.
and it was exactly what you would do anyway when your retinues became big enough, park them on the border, declare war then steamroll the enemy.
In regards to the third point fabricating claims. Yes, now you guaranteed to get a claim after a certain time (based on the chaplains skill). I think it is ok. Maybe they could turn off the timer so you don't know exactly when it will happen. But even in CK2 you basically guaranteed to eventually get it. I believe in one game it never triggered and it was so frustrating that I abandoned the playthrough....that I remember. By the way the timers are weird anyway. Why do I kinda now exacty when my murder plot will happen, why do I know exactly when the claim will be fabricated. I think the timers should be hidden (maybe visible only with certain perks).
I really like this idea of hiding the timers, it making them perks to unlock them may unbalance some of the trees but I'm not a game designer so I'm not sure where would be best to implement them. On the other hand it seems perfect for been added as a game rule and then players can choose if they want to see the timers or not.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
How are you still on your first? How little do you play?
Well, to be honest the thing is that back when the game launched I ended up kinda ragequitting after a separatist faction took away a bunch of my land just when I was pretty close to uniting the Slavs (I was playing in Ironman too). This happened after a succession left me only with my capital county apart from the main empire title, so I didn't have much power and the first time their faction fired I managed to white peace them, but then it just fired again after only a little while, which I didn't expect to happen, but I might have had a chance if only the vastness of territory didn't make me just miss them sieging my capital while I was on my way to theirs, and so they captured me and got an instant win.
Of course just the next day I've read about the exploit where you make your capital duchy elective and then by electing the same heir who gets the empire you get to keep everything within the duchy too. If only I've known that a little earlier...
So after that I decided to take a break with CK3, and then other games kept me busy enough until I decided to return after the winter holidays.
 
CK3 was never going to have the depth and complexity in some areas., but I do think CK3 is by far the better base game and has much more potential to be the superior game in the end when it has recived all the love and attention CK2 had over the years.

I agree I also didn't expect CK3 to have the same amount as content as CK2, I am not asking the impossible of the devs. But like I mentioned numerous times, I don't like in what direction the 'depth' has gone. The depth is in the form of skill trees and events, I don't care too much about either of these TBH. Skill trees feel restricted, rail-roaded and forced. It is kind of like the national focusses in HOI4 you just wait till you unlock a button so you can do something. Players should DO something to unlock something instead of waiting. Look at the coronation decision in CK2, you actually have to do a mission for the pope before you can be coronated. Why aren't we allowed to actively do something with our character before we unlock new perks? For example winning 3 wars to unlock a perk, in the strategy skill tree. And even though doing something would a significant improvement, it would still be kind of lame because I always know exactly what to expect in every playthrough.

Everyone always asks for 'content' but what they really mean is more stuff to do. There's a significant difference.
Thank you! From a marketing point of view, I would probably have made almost the exact same decision as the developers. Making the game more simple, focus on weird meme-like events so videos on YouTube will be trending and introducing 3D models so more people can immerse themselves in the experience. Let's be honest, older PDX games are incredibly niche, and I don't know anyone IRL that enjoys CKII or EUIV because it is so hard to learn these games. It would have simply be too much of a risk to make CK3 even more complex and deep than CK2.

But if I had to make the game just for the extremely niche-strategy audience I would have taken the game in an entirely different direction. I am not a game developer so I don't know how realistic my ideas are and how an AI can handle these mechanics:

- First of all, I would have focussed just on Christian Europe for the release version, so we would have had 1 really fleshed out region instead of a very broad map but with hardly any regional flavor.
- I would have introduced an economy and trade system. Trade goods would give you access to certain retinue units similar to Stellaris and IR. Trade would be similar to Civ 6 where you can send merchants to other kingdoms to create trade routes.
- I would have completely reworked the combat system. The new system in IR looks great where you have a combination of levies and retinues. With the trade goods system where you have access to different units, regions would feel entirely different. In Germany, you would have heavy infantry that is slower but tankier and in the steppes you'll have large mobile cavalry armies.
- I would also have reworked the peace deal and cassus belli system. Where peace deals are more similar to EU4, but way more restricted in how much land you can take. Make it incredibly costly to take provinces that you don't have a claim on. Just a system where you are not forced to take an entire nation on its knees for 1 exclave province and were there are actual consequences if your entire country is occupied by the enemy
- I would make the faction system deeper, where new kinds of factions spawn depending on your playstyle. Do you have a lot of merchant republics as vassals? Maybe there will be a merchant faction that 8wants to transform the kingdom into a republic. it would also be great if you could do interactions with factions. Like for example making a deal with factions that supports a pretender, where he gives up his claims if you agree to conquer a neighboring province for him. Make the factions a more dynamic part of the game, that can give you a lot of benefits and headaches, instead of an alternative rebel system.
- I would introduce more options to personalize your kingdom. There was for example a mod in CK2 where you could customize your own palace, why not introduce that into the game? Give us the ability to found military orders, where we can customize them as we wish. You could create your very own Varangian Guard or janissaries. They could then later appear as a faction into the game. Maybe a system where we can place a character into the canon of a kingdom, immortalizing them as a legend. Kind of like mix between the deitify function in IR and the bloodline system in CK2. Too summarize more nation-building functions, so there is more of a sense of personalization, progression and accomplishment in the late game.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Well, to be honest the thing is that back when the game launched I ended up kinda ragequitting after a separatist faction took away a bunch of my land just when I was pretty close to uniting the Slavs (I was playing in Ironman too). This happened after a succession left me only with my capital county apart from the main empire title, so I didn't have much power and the first time their faction fired I managed to white peace them, but then it just fired again after only a little while, which I didn't expect to happen, but I might have had a chance if only the vastness of territory didn't make me just miss them sieging my capital while I was on my way to theirs, and so they captured me and got an instant win.
Of course just the next day I've read about the exploit where you make your capital duchy elective and then by electing the same heir who gets the empire you get to keep everything within the duchy too. If only I've known that a little earlier...
So after that I decided to take a break with CK3, and then other games kept me busy enough until I decided to return after the winter holidays.
You could've used task manager to save scum being captured in your capital
 
  • 1
Reactions:
- First of all, I would have focussed just on Christian Europe for the release version, so we would have had 1 really fleshed out region instead of a very broad map but with hardly any regional flavor.
- I would have introduced an economy and trade system. Trade goods would give you access to certain retinue units similar to Stellaris and IR. Trade would be similar to Civ 6 where you can send merchants to other kingdoms to create trade routes.
- I would have completely reworked the combat system. The new system in IR looks great where you have a combination of levies and retinues. With the trade goods system where you have access to different units, regions would feel entirely different. In Germany, you would have heavy infantry that is slower but tankier and in the steppes you'll have large mobile cavalry armies.

In regards to economy and trade system:
Trade was much less a big deal in the middle ages than you think. Production of goods was mostly localized and trade happened mostly on a local level (county, maybe dutchy level). Yes, in the high middle and late middle ages there was some international trade picking up.....with the north Italian traders, the German Hanse later in the 1300s, and Spice trade with the middle East. Kings didn't involve themselves too much into trade details, they might have giving certain rights (rights to hold markets, etc.) to guilds or people but they wouldn't have micromanaged it. England for example only had one real export commodity and that was wool/fabric which was not really on a monarchs radar until King Henry I who figured out if he builds good relationships with the trade/wool guilds and support their trade, he then could tax the hell out of them to finance his wars. Maybe the most important trade item was salt....it was needed for preservation almost everywhere. What kind of economy and trade system would you like to implement that is somewhat historical correct and wouldn't change the scope of the game (this is not a ANNO game). Trade happens, but you don't really deal with it, it happens passive and you receive the proceeds from taxes. From that money you finance your levies and MaAs. What is very realistic. Also, the game has special units for different cultures (Landsknechte and Camel Cavalry for example). A more detailed trade and economy system would only make sense if you can play Mayor City republics because than trade is pretty much the only thing you can do. Cities didn't go conquering the world, but they made alliances with other towns and cities to counter the power of nobility and competing cities with the intention to increase their trade and income.

Don't forget, Paradox is not only trying to make a fun grand strategy game, they also try to make a game that fits as good as possible in the historical correct context. Its not a fantasy world where they can come up with whatever game mechanic that is fun, they also try to make it realistic and authentic in a way. They did a pretty good job. If someone very knowledgeable about medieval history and society they will notice over and over again during playthroughs how many details in the game are historically correct or at least approximated as good as possible. This gives the game its special charm and is one of the main reason I am spending so much time with the game.

I get your point about focusing the game on christian Europe first and flesh this out. But I don't know if this is possible, considering that this game is called "Crusader Kings" and where would you do your crusades if you only have Christian Europe? You kinda would be limited on the Iberian peninsula....
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
In regards to economy and trade system:
Trade was much less a big deal in the middle ages than you think. Production of goods was mostly localized and trade happened mostly on a local level (county, maybe dutchy level). Yes, in the high middle and late middle ages there was some international trade picking up.....with the north Italian traders, the German Hanse later in the 1300s, and Spice trade with the middle East. Kings didn't involve themselves too much into trade details, they might have giving certain rights (rights to hold markets, etc.) to guilds or people but they wouldn't have micromanaged it. England for example only had one real export commodity and that was wool/fabric which was not really on a monarchs radar until King Henry I who figured out if he builds good relationships with the trade/wool guilds and support their trade, he then could tax the hell out of them to finance his wars. Maybe the most important trade item was salt....it was needed for preservation almost everywhere. What kind of economy and trade system would you like to implement that is somewhat historical correct and wouldn't change the scope of the game (this is not a ANNO game). Trade happens, but you don't really deal with it, it happens passive and you receive the proceeds from taxes. From that money you finance your levies and MaAs. What is very realistic. Also, the game has special units for different cultures (Landsknechte and Camel Cavalry for example). A more detailed trade and economy system would only make sense if you can play Mayor City republics because than trade is pretty much the only thing you can do. Cities didn't go conquering the world, but they made alliances with other towns and cities to counter the power of nobility and competing cities.

Don't forget, Paradox is not only trying to make a fun grand strategy game, they also try to make a game that fits as good as possible in the historical correct context. Its not a fantasy world where they can come up with whatever game mechanic that is fun, they also try to make it realistic and authentic in a way. They did a pretty good job. If someone very knowledgeable about medieval history and society they will notice over and over again during playthroughs how many details in the game are historically correct or at least approximated as good as possible. This gives the game its special charm and is one of the main reason I am spending so much time with the game.

I get your point about focusing the game on christian Europe first and flesh this out. But I don't know if this is possible, considering that this game is called "Crusader Kings" and where would you do your crusades if you only have Christian Europe? You kinda would be limited on the Iberian peninsula....

I'm not asking for a super detailed economic system akin to Vicky 2 but having an economic/trade system would make the geopolitics and military system more interesting and unique. Also trade and production were very important in the middle ages. Flanders for example became one of the richest regions in Europe thanks to their cloth production and their involvement in the Hansa. I'm didn't do a large brainstorm session i'm just giving some ideas on nation building.

Of course the middle east should be present but I mean only playable Christian characters like the release version of Ck2.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not asking for a super detailed economic system akin to Vicky 2 but having an economic/trade system would make the geopolitics and military system more interesting and unique. Also trade and production were very important in the middle ages. Flanders for example became one of the richest regions in Europe thanks to their productive cloth production and their involvement in the Hansa. I'm didn't do a large brainstorm session i'm just giving some ideas on nation building.

Of course the middle east should be present but I mean only playable Christian characters like the release version of Ck2.

Yes, you are correct with Flanders. But it was managed by the guilds and not by the aristocratic leaders that we play in the game. Also, this all happened mostly in the 13th/ 14th century also kinda in the last stretch of time period our game coves....

Let's see and wait and find out what Paradox is coming up with in their DLCs. I am sure it will be good and make the game better....
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, you are correct with Flanders. But it was managed by the guilds and not by the aristocratic leaders that we play in the game. Also, this all happened mostly in the 13th/ 14th century also kinda in the last stretch of time period our game coves....
Guilds would be an interesting focus for a DLC. We don't have to play as the leaders of the guilds for them to play a role in the game.
 
Guilds would be an interesting focus for a DLC. We don't have to play as the leaders of the guilds for them to play a role in the game.

Yes, it could be interesting if we get a DLC that focuses on playing the mayor or doge of a republic. Game mechanics for this could be the expansion of trade, trying to get independent of Feudal liege, making alliances/leagues with other cities/republics (like for example the Hanseatic league). Instead of a council you could have that filled with different guild leaders to interact with. This would have completely different game mechanics than the Vanilla CK3, but I am sure it could added on top of the basis game. I don't think this is missing in the current CK3, but would make an interesting DLC in the future. It could even have a later start date than 1066.
 
  • 1
Reactions: