Does a game have to be so rigid and locked to be "easier"?

[Staffy50]

Since you previously said this, "its entirely fair. They chose to release the game now, they were not forced. The game should stand up and be a successor to CK2 on release, not after several years and paid DLC's ", you first.

Whats your point here? I'm saying there that the game doesn't stand up as a sequel. If it was a new IP, or a remake it would be fine.

I mean I had a quick look at found this thread where someone claims they regret calling it CK3, which would make sense;

To me, it seems like CK3 will be less revolutionary than CK2. At this point, they might as well rebooted the series with a new name, considering they have admitted regretting their name choice.

So is this supposed to be a sequel or a remake?

When CK3 was first announced, I was pretty excited. Finally, I thought, we can get past all the trouble that hardcoded feudalism brought and get things like a system that allowed you to be both a vassal to someone else under one title while also...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[wilcoxchar]

Whats your point here? I'm saying there that the game doesn't stand up as a sequel. If it was a new IP, or a remake it would be fine.

I mean I had a quick look at found this thread where someone claims they regret calling it CK3;

So is this supposed to be a sequel or a remake?

When CK3 was first announced, I was pretty excited. Finally, I thought, we can get past all the trouble that hardcoded feudalism brought and get things like a system that allowed you to be both a vassal to someone else under one title while also...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Yeah, they've said they regretted sticking with the "Crusader Kings" label because it has unfortunate connotations that the game is Christian and Europe centric only, which is no longer true, and the cultural implications that go along with the brand name. Not because of any features in it or any connection with previous games.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

My fault for bringing CK2 into the discussion in my post, thinking people could be mature, and intelligent when reading.

When you use something as the basis for your opinion, expect it to be what people focus on, especially when you make a flawed comparison.

You literally opened by comparing to Ck2 ~6 times in your first paragraph block.

You were completely wrong about the development mechanic,

You MIGHT have something with the Head mechanics, but still your portrayal of it was wrong (Any King level title can easily become cultural head).

Lastly, much of your post is about mechanics that Started out extremely limited in Ck2, and were then expanded over multiple DLCs and years of patching.


If you want people to actually discuss your Post, trying actually having a coherent topic. Also, maybe reply to it sooner than a day later.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

...

FWIW I aggree with your sentiment, but this but this air of intellectual superiority that you are trying to give off is laughable.

I could argue with you for days, but dammit all if this isn't right.

 

[Secret Master]

So it seems everyone is refusing to use reading comprehension when reading this post.... As they latch onto bits like "Ck2 was more hard" or "Ck3 is easy" and blow that into the whole argument, or "of course CK3 isn't as deep it just released DUH!!!" and yes I know CK3 just released, and that isn't a basis of my argument.. I'm talking about the CURRENT mechanics pidgeon holing gameplay options and making arbituary limitations in ways CK2 doesn't...

Well, I'm a big fan of reading comprehension and writing in an effective manner. So, let's see what we have.

My whole point of this thread is this: CK3 has far less freedom and more controlled/locked than Ck2...

Okay. That's what you edited it to. What did you start with?

So its obvious by this point that CK2 is for those hardcore strategists who want a deep strategy game, and CK3 are for those who don't get to play much, or can't wrap their heads around CK2, where things are much more simple, watered down, and easy to understand. (For the most part).

I don't know. If I wanted to emphasize the freedom to act in a way you want, I wouldn't have started my post with an introductory paragraph that literally says CK2 is for hardcore players and CK3 is for people who don't play much. If you didn't want to launch a discussion based on comparing hardcore players to filthy casuals, why did you even write this?

I mean, I don't want to be picky, but you brought that into the discussion and made it clear which you favored.

To tackle your other points:

Playing as "pagans" like the African tribes, or Norse. Due to how the Innovations/technology, etc. work. They will struggle for the entire game no matter what.. There is nothing you can do to change this, nothing you can to bring your culture up to a more enlightened understanding... This is EXTREMELY limiting...

I've had no problem "bringing my culture to a more enlightened understanding" playing as Norse. You'd be amazed at how much progress you can make as pagan Norseman if you conquer the southern half of the Iberian peninsula and culture flip it to Norse.

Note that I was still tribal when I wiped out the Umayyads.

Western "Tech" is the best in Europa, everything else is worse off, and Ck3 has similar issues..

Not in the 867 start. The highest innovation I can find is Tengu culture in India. India also has several cultures that start with 10 innovations, tying them with the Greeks. Meanwhile, western Europe is run by cultures that have 8 or fewer innovations at start.

Even worse, you bring up development:

But the point I"m trying to make is the "development" is really an obscure thing meaning "how westernized this county is"

Not really. Ile de France has 15 development. Middlesex has 9. Cordoba has 20. Rome has 25. Constantinople has 25. Madurai in India has 25. Baghdad has 20.

But here's the kicker:

If you care about development, you should be operating in either Northern India or Southern India. While Europe has a few counties with high development, India has many counties with higher than average development.

Between development and innovations, India is the cradle of civilization in the world of CK3. Not really Europe or western in any meaningful sense of that term.

In CK2 as a Norse pagan, if I wanted to role-play as a norse who didn't agree with the "Norse ways" and instead wanted to embrace the western culture, I could.. and I could benefit wildly from it.

I suppose you could do what the historical Norse did when they didn't agree with Norse Ways and wanted to embrace what you call western culture. You could embrace another culture and stop being Norse.

You want to be Norse? Then accept what that means. If you don't feel like being culture head, that's on you. You are going to no doubt complain that you can't play "your way" here, but if you aren't the most important ruler in your culture, part of what that means is not getting to pick cultural fascination. It's the same with other mechanics. If you just want to be a mid-sized king, you don't get the benefits of being an emperor. If you don't want to be Indian, you don't get Wootz Steel. If you don't live in the right places, you don't get camels. If you don't want to be Polish, you don't get Konni cavalry. You want to have human sacrifice? Well, that precludes being a Roman Catholic.

 

[aono]

The fleet mechanics, and culture-innovation to me are the only things holding this game back, and the culture innovation is really the only real argument my post has.

Sorry if I seem rather disgruntled. Seeing people take 1 tiny comment out of a whole post, and turning the thread into something its not is quite irritating.

If your only disagreement is about one mechanic, which can be fit into one sentence "culture head mechanic is suck", and you're writing 5.5K characters describing how it's impossible to have game freedom in CK3 with CK2 being a paragon of free play, well, you're doing it wrong. Honestly.


First. No, CK2 isn't a game "for those hardcore strategists who want a deep strategy game". CK2 is very shallow in gameplay, which is actually proven by the statement that you can easily mold your family and world around whatever you want. If anything, being forced to consider situation and limitations (and, maybe, overcome them?) is the definition of strategy gameplay for me. It's about "tiny comment" that takes 1K characters.

Second. Yes, there is a problem (or not problem) of some features being locked behind innovations. It can't say it's "better" or "worse" as CK2 tech system (which I like). I can agree with it being kinda strange, and, maybe, redesigned. Still, CK2 system where you have capital with 3-5 levels of tech, and every county around with 1 level is strange as well.

Third. No, CK3 doesn't have "Europa Paradox", development (and tech) isn't centered in Europe. The most developed culture in Europe in 867 is Greek (10 innovations). The same development has Indian cultures, with Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Sinhala having 11 each. What does look like Europa Paradox is regional innovations of later eras, which are majorly depending on european regions. Still, if you count mechanics which were accessible to Europeans and compare it to Indians in CK2, well...

So, no. In my opinion your thesis that CK3 is more limiting that CK2 is wrong. It's limiting differently (like, you could play as republic in CK2 and can't in CK3; limiting!), but a number of possibilities I have in vanilla CK3 is on par with number of possibilities I had in vanilla CK2. Throwing mods in this calculation, yeah, CK2 winning narrowly. Still, I already seen mods adding whole new mechanics.

 

[Kinkness]

You want to be Norse? Then accept what that means. If you don't feel like being culture head, that's on you. You are going to no doubt complain that you can't play "your way" here, but if you aren't the most important ruler in your culture, part of what that means is not getting to pick cultural fascination. It's the same with other mechanics. If you just want to be a mid-sized king, you don't get the benefits of being an emperor. If you don't want to be Indian, you don't get Wootz Steel. If you don't live in the right places, you don't get camels. If you don't want to be Polish, you don't get Konni cavalry. You want to have human sacrifice? Well, that precludes being a Roman Catholic.

So you agree with me.. CK3 is far less open than Ck2.

In CK2 I didn't need to culture flip, I could "re make" what the Norse culture was to an extent. Since the "Culture" wasn't a blanket that everyone was tied too in CK2, you could have varying forms of it in Ck2, not in CK3.

Even the "American" or "British" culture has tons of "sub cultures" inside them to this day, just like back in the day there were "sub cultures" to the culture itself. They stills share similar macro traits, (such as Norse being able to raid across the sea), but they don't all perfectly align with each other either.

CK3 forces them all to be identical clones to each other when it comes to culture, and ignores "sub cultures" so to speak, Ck2 didn't by any means and allowed for more fluidity and open ended game-play in that sense, (at least for the player, which also enriched the multi-player).

------------

So to force anything of how I want to play, not only am I forced to be the culture head, (and thus a big powerful part of the culture, I can't play as a small or medium sized ruler going against the ways, but still staying true to the over all idea of the culture like you could in CK2), but to add insult to injury now everyone is forced to be that under me, rather than me being the unique exception.

--------------

You also are trying to argue that some how having my own idea and road when it comes to culture is something only emperors or powerful leaders could do.. Which is so abhorrently wrong...

Generally norse who didn't follow, or accept the norse ways would.. well not last long.. but that's the beauty of Crusader Kings... you CAN make it work, and it allows for great diverging history, and gameplay options...

Options which are snuffed, or locked in CK3 by a large margin.

Benefits of being an Emperor has to do with the realm in which you control... I get what CK3 is trying to simulate, but like many mechanics.. it falls short, doesn't hold true to reality, and limits the game-play... (Like the aggressive war negative opinion modifier which makes absolutely zero sense in how its actually setup. I get what its trying to simulate, but it falls extra short of the mechanic it replaced, which was "threat" level.).

 

[Karlington]

In CK2 I didn't need to culture flip, I could "re make" what the Norse culture was to an extent. Since the "Culture" wasn't a blanket that everyone was tied too in CK2, you could have varying forms of it in Ck2, not in CK3.

Even the "American" or "British" culture has tons of "sub cultures" inside them to this day, just like back in the day there were "sub cultures" to the culture itself. They stills share similar macro traits, (such as Norse being able to raid across the sea), but they don't all perfectly align with each other either.

CK3 forces them all to be identical clones to each other when it comes to culture, and ignores "sub cultures" so to speak, Ck2 didn't by any means and allowed for more fluidity and open ended game-play in that sense, (at least for the player, which also enriched the multi-player).

Hmm? There were no sub cultures in CK2, and no variation at all. One thing I complained about in CK2 was that for 95% or so of cultures the culture had zero meaning except determining who you got an opinion penalty with for not sharing a culture or cultural group. There was only a very small amount of cultures that had either some events or the ability to raid.

 

[Kinkness]

If your only disagreement is about one mechanic, which can be fit into one sentence "culture head mechanic is suck", and you're writing 5.5K characters describing how it's impossible to have game freedom in CK3 with CK2 being a paragon of free play, well, you're doing it wrong. Honestly.

Culture head mechanic was simply 1 example, but the biggest by far.

First. No, CK2 isn't a game "for those hardcore strategists who want a deep strategy game". CK2 is very shallow in gameplay, which is actually proven by the statement that you can easily mold your family and world around whatever you want. If anything, being forced to consider situation and limitations (and, maybe, overcome them?) is the definition of strategy gameplay for me. It's about "tiny comment" that takes 1K characters.

Being able to do more doesn't = easier

Nor does limitations = harder...

Lets get that fact out there first... It's an obscure and wrong argument as it doesn't take any facts or situations into account with that blanket statement you just made.

Ck2 is by far more in depth for strategy and tactics and thinking than Ck3. I'm actually surprised how many people are saying the opposite...

They took out fleets to make it "Easier". They took out buildings to make it "easier" (They even admit this in the dev diaries "remaking the mechanics to be easier to understand, and get into". AKA making it easier and less complicated and in depth.. They literally made Ck3 to be the easy mode version of CK2... Look at how the interneral politics are.. biggest complaints on the CK3 forums right now is how easy everything is... Easy to make asanine amounts of gold, easy to keep a monster realm in check, everything is so easy.... Easy as hell to keep vassals in check, and keep everything running.

CK2 the threads every year were opposite.. things being too hard, or people asking how the heck you do something like keep your vassals in check..

CK2 had far more to think about.. Just because you mastered Ck2, and its easy for you now, doesn't make CK2 easy.. There is far more to consider at every point in the game than CK3 has. That's a factual truth, and those considerations are important which could make or break whatever you're trying to do, that is what adds the depth and strategy to CK2. (and why so many had problems with Ck2 if they weren't a real strategy game enthusiast).

Look at the Steam reviews, and why people like Ck3. "So much eaier to get into and understand than CK2" etc. etc... complaints for Ck3 is that its too easy or not as in depth as CK2...

Look at the reviews, and reasons why people dislike Ck2? Polar opposite.. its too difficult, to much to learn, no reason or understand why something is happening because too many threads pulling on any 1 thing for them to want to learn.

That's why they made CK3... to bring the people want a game like Crusader Kings, but aren't as adept at strategy games... EASIER....

Second. Yes, there is a problem (or not problem) of some features being locked behind innovations. It can't say it's "better" or "worse" as CK2 tech system (which I like). I can agree with it being kinda strange, and, maybe, redesigned. Still, CK2 system where you have capital with 3-5 levels of tech, and every county around with 1 level is strange as well.

Neither system was perfect, both systems have its flaws, and both systems even have its perks...

I personally would like to see a combination of both systems in Ck3, but that's besides the point of the thread, which is that the current system is very limiting, and hard locks decisions, choices, and things to do in the game behind a hard locked time gate..

Which is again, factually correct.

Third. No, CK3 doesn't have "Europa Paradox", development (and tech) isn't centered in Europe. The most developed culture in Europe in 867 is Greek (10 innovations). The same development has Indian cultures, with Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Sinhala having 11 each. What does look like Europa Paradox is regional innovations of later eras, which are majorly depending on european regions. Still, if you count mechanics which were accessible to Europeans and compare it to Indians in CK2, well...

Okay, maybe I didn't explain it correctly, which I probably didn't...

What I'm saying is that Crusader Kings 3 has the problem where culture A is so far ahead of culture B. Culture B will always be behind culture A by that margin (give or take a tiny bit here or there).

There is virtually nothing you can do to get around that unless you are either the culture head, or specifically play a certain way, and even then you're always going to be behind in most cases.

It doesn't allow for the "what ifs" and going outside of the historical and or way paradox set it up like Ck2 allows. While it took time in Ck2, it was more than possible as a backwards pagan to become the future of tech advances and stability.. Not so in CK3.

Like the whole point of my thread... more limiting, and less options.

So, no. In my opinion your thesis that CK3 is more limiting that CK2 is wrong. It's limiting differently (like, you could play as republic in CK2 and can't in CK3; limiting!), but a number of possibilities I have in vanilla CK3 is on par with number of possibilities I had in vanilla CK2. Throwing mods in this calculation, yeah, CK2 winning narrowly. Still, I already seen mods adding whole new mechanics.

So again you agree with me...

On one hand you agree that there is less options in ways to play (like not playing as merchant republics, which is of course understandable given CK3 just released), then saying "Some" things are on par in CK3 with what you could in CK2, which they are..

Then you back track yet again and agree with me saying that even if you factor in mods CK2 is still winning narrowly...

This whole post comes down too "I need to ignore a bunch of facts, to try to convince myself this game is less limiting, while I try to argue against you"....

 

[Kinkness]

Hmm? There were no sub cultures in CK2, and no variation at all. One thing I complained about in CK2 was that for 95% or so of cultures the culture had zero meaning except determining who you got an opinion penalty with for not sharing a culture or cultural group. There was only a very small amount of cultures that had either some events or the ability to raid.

No there wasn't, but you weren't hard locked into playing a specific way, and with specific limitations based on a bunch of convoluted limitations because some "culture head" decided something.


If you read my post more carefully you'll understand what I'm saying. Because culture was a loose mechanic, that only added certain hard yet small limitations or buffs, or changes, you could still play entirely different from another realm right next door with the same culture.

you could have 3 norse cultures for example.. 1 is the stereotypical pagan norse who wants to raid under gavelkind succession, while another is is a half stabailized norse who has adopted Seniority succession, and doesn't raid, while the third norse also raids, but has a more advanced understanding of tech and succession, with primogeniture, and a stronger norse religion.

All 3 are norse, but have slightly different ways they live as norse. (This is what I mean by "sub cultures") even if they didn't exist specifically, they still existed by virtue of mechanical allowances.

Yes this can still happen at around 1300 when there's only 100 years left to actually play, but that's boring and again super limiting...

This could happen as early as 900 AD in Ck2 if those 3 realms really seperated and focused down 3 different paths.

 

[Tuo]

So to force anything of how I want to play, not only am I forced to be the culture head, (and thus a big powerful part of the culture, I can't play as a small or medium sized ruler going against the ways, but still staying true to the over all idea of the culture like you could in CK2), but to add insult to injury now everyone is forced to be that under me, rather than me being the unique exception.

Your "unique exception" is a different culture. Should the game offer better options to separate your culture from the larger parent? Perhaps, but already, most cultures start in fairly contained areas, where the ruler of a single kingdom can become the culture head. The monolithic block that is the Norse culture breaks up, too, leaving the 4 resulting cultures in kingdom-sized chunks, still within the same culture group, but distinct. And if you hold the fertile lands of Denmark, perhaps your Danish culture will rise to become an "unique exception" among the North Germanic cultures. And that is very much doable.

 

[Secret Master]

Even the "American" or "British" culture has tons of "sub cultures" inside them to this day, just like back in the day there were "sub cultures" to the culture itself. They stills share similar macro traits, (such as Norse being able to raid across the sea), but they don't all perfectly align with each other either.

Subcultures? Wait, what? I don't think that was a thing in CK2.

CK3 forces them all to be identical clones to each other when it comes to culture, and ignores "sub cultures" so to speak, Ck2 didn't by any means and allowed for more fluidity and open ended game-play in that sense, (at least for the player, which also enriched the multi-player).

Wait, what subcultures are you talking about? And how in the Hell are cultures identical clones of each other in CK3? My Ethiopians in the current game are different than those pesky French idiots right now. They will never get access to my camels (since I'm sure as Hell not letting them in my Holy Land), and they decided to focus on development innovations instead of better fortifications.

But I think your argument seems to be that you could use innovations (tech in CK2) to differentiate cultures... but tech in CK2 had nothing to do with culture at all. It was tied to provinces. If a Norse Viking conquered Constantinople and made it his capital, he gets all that tech. And he's still a Germanic Pagan Norse guy who raids, drinks mead, and sacrifices people to Odin periodically via Great Blots.

Basically, this:

What I'm saying is that Crusader Kings 3 has the problem where culture A is so far ahead of culture B. Culture B will always be behind culture A by that margin (give or take a tiny bit here or there).

Not true at all. My Ethiopians have caught up to Western Europe. (Actually, we are ahead in one or two categories, thanks to rulers with actual learning stats, but they have some innovations I lack.) If you want to play technological catch up, you have the tools to do it. It might entail taking a break from spamming rulers with stewardship or martial trees, but there's no reason you can't focus on learning for a few rulers and speed up the acquisition of innovations. Yes, you need to be culture head, but that's the price you pay for upgrading your culture. If you don't want to be culture head, you don't get to dictate what you culture does. It's not really different from politics. If you don't want to be HRE, you don't get to tell the vassals of the empire what to do. If you don't want to be king of France, you don't get to tell the French vassals what to do. If you don't want to be emperor in Constantinople, you don't get to tell those Byzantines what to do.

 

[aono]

Culture head mechanic was simply 1 example, but the biggest by far.

And still you don't offer others in 5K characters post.

Being able to do more doesn't = easier

Nor does limitations = harder...

As you can actually notice, I'm not saying here that CK2 is easier then CK3 (well, it is, but it's not matters here). I'm saying that CK2 is more shallow/less deep as a strategic game as CK2. As someone put it in the thread, "reading comprehension goes a long way folks".
Being able to do more also != "deeper". In the game globally considered the deepest tabletop game you can literally do only one thing - put a stone into line cross.

That's why they made CK3... to bring the people want a game like Crusader Kings, but aren't as adept at strategy games... EASIER....

...TO LEARN.
CK2 was ungodly mess when you're tried to understand WHY something is happening in some particular way, because it's Paradox game of previous generation, when explaining people how all of this works was, ahm, khm, considered redundant. CK3 is so much better in this aspect, indeed. It actually explain things. Not all of them (and it's bad), but a lot of them.
Up to hillarious situation when things are explained in-game, more then in one place, and still people go to forum asking, because they used to idea it's the only way to understand how things work.

I personally would like to see a combination of both systems in Ck3, but that's besides the point of the thread, which is that the current system is very limiting, and hard locks decisions, choices, and things to do in the game behind a hard locked time gate..

Technically right. There are four hard locks in action.
Still, I don't recall it locking me from doing things for, like, 405 hours. Ok. let's say 300 hours, as about 100 hours are testing timelapses. So I wouldn't call it "very limiting" indeed.
EDIT: Actually, it's three. There is no hard locked time gate to enter Tribal era.

What I'm saying is that Crusader Kings 3 has the problem where culture A is so far ahead of culture B. Culture B will always be behind culture A by that margin (give or take a tiny bit here or there).

There is virtually nothing you can do to get around that unless you are either the culture head, or specifically play a certain way, and even then you're always going to be behind in most cases.

Yes, if you're going to push your culture ahead, you should be culture head. If you're going to push your realm ahead in CK2, you should play a game in particular way as well. And no, culture CAN break the gap, if cultural head is playing right. Personally, I tend to be on par culturally with Greeks as Finnish at 1100.

It doesn't allow for the "what ifs" and going outside of the historical and or way paradox set it up like Ck2 allows. While it took time in Ck2, it was more than possible as a backwards pagan to become the future of tech advances and stability.. Not so in CK3.

My experience is completely different. I usually do exactly this - my backward pagans are becoming the future of tech advances and stability. It's just not done the same way as it was done in CK2. Which is ok, I think.
I mean, once again. We can argue if cultural head mechanic is bad or good. But we're not arguing it here, we're arguing here if CK3 is shallow game which doesn't allow "what ifs" and ahistorical outcomes, right?

So again you agree with me...

On one hand you agree that there is less options in ways to play (like not playing as merchant republics, which is of course understandable given CK3 just released), then saying "Some" things are on par in CK3 with what you could in CK2, which they are..

No, I don't. "Reading comprehension goes a long way."
I do agree that CK3 has some limitations which CK2 has not. That's obviously true. Still, CK2 has some limitations CK3 hasn't (for example, you did need navies to move around). In the end, vanilla CK3, in my opinion, is not more limiting in gameplay styles and ways then vanilla CK2.
Then I said that if you throw mods in, with people making mods in 8 years for CK2 and for, like, two months for CK3, CK2 narrowly wins. Narrowly - because framework for modding, what you can and can't do as a modder in CK3, is so richer, and modding community is so better developed in 2020. I mean, in two months we have 1380 mods in Steam Workshop for CK3, and in eight years it's 3062 for CK2.

you could have 3 norse cultures for example.. 1 is the stereotypical pagan norse who wants to raid under gavelkind succession, while another is is a half stabailized norse who has adopted Seniority succession, and doesn't raid, while the third norse also raids, but has a more advanced understanding of tech and succession, with primogeniture, and a stronger norse religion.

No, you couldn't. You could have 1 norse culture and different realms with different laws within this culture. Culture just didn't mean a lot but giving you (hardcoded) building, hardcoded decision (which stop working after hardcoded timegate), and (hardcoded) ability to raid.

 

[Blinky78]

I've seen this idea tossed around a bit that CKIII is somehow more casual than CKII. It just doesn't tally with any of my memories of unmodded CKII.

To some, less opaque interface = for casuals.