A chronicle of the High Kings of Ireland
- Thread starter Volodio
- Start date
-
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.
I ended it here because of the cloud save bug, which was becoming unbearable.
Here is the pdf file, for those who prefer to read it in this format.
Here is the pdf file, for those who prefer to read it in this format.
A decent run. A good first try, I think. Ireland certainly seems a bit harder than it was in CK2. Especially because of that stupid inheritance system.
Actually, it's way easier. I mostly limited myself on purpose, for RP reason, because it makes for a better story and to keep a challenge for late-game. The most obvious example being me not creating an empire after conquering Wales and England as Labraid the Conqueror. Another example is Patrick the Reformer going feudal instead of reclaiming England. Or me not spamming wars unless I had an ambitious or martial character. But even when limiting myself, I was able to become King of Ireland with my first ruler with the 867 start, which was definitely harder in CK2. There are also some successions which were incredibly easy thanks to the dread mechanism.
Really? I do agree that getting custom claims is easier (at least less frustrating) but the 867AD start is infamously simple for Irish rulers. That's why its the agreed start point for learning the game. And then its much simpler to convert to feudalism and unlock better inference options to keep your new realm under your chosen heir. AND Great Britian has no competitors for your power once you united Ireland.
In CK3, whilst it is easier to get a realm, its much harder to hold one because realm divide means that even though your heir will be king, he'll lose most of his land to siblings. Wales is much stronger than any start in CK2, and the Scandinavian countries have claims and interests in Ireland already.
It may be down to personal preference, but if I were to run the same start in both games and try to do the same things, I would wager actual money on dominating the british Isles in ck2 (even with role-playing) compared to a more sedate being one of the more powerful kingdoms in ck3, after say 50 years.
Saying that, the default Irish tutorial start (1066 Munster) is very well balanced between easy enough early game and challenging neighbours after taking over Ireland. I've played 48 years, and three kings, and just got to the point where Ireland can break even with England and beat them in war. A fun time, and I recommend that start for regular players, as well as beginners, which isn't something I could say of ck2 Ireland unless you wanted to do a challenge. However, because Ireland is so stable and safe in ck2, its idea for challenges like making tribal Ireland a successful Republic etc.
Actually, it's the 1066 start date for tutorial Ireland in CK2, not 867. In CK2, you also had to deal with the Vikings, who were very scary when they raided, it took some time to recover soldiers from defeat, the succession laws were as shitty and the soldiers were far weaker. In CK3, you have unlimited CB to conquer Ireland, far better soldiers (prestige based retinue of elite troops, so no problem going against feudal), tribals are far far stronger in general (you can get up to 100% levies of your vassals with max fame) and far less dangerous vassals with their rework and the dread system. I mean, you can see how I had no problem crushing Denmark, which should've been way out of my league. I literally never lost a war in that game, despite often being very reckless about it. The closer I got to losing a war was making a white peace as Oengus because I realized afterward I declared war for the wrong province.