The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
This thread is more than 5 months old.
It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.
will dharma or the free update not break ironman saves? i'm on vacations and i have an ongoing poland run
actually thats op policyEh. So it seems we still get useless policies.
Lmao are you serious? A whole policy for this?
Second one is either useless or a typo. That's a -2% modifier, not -20%.
actually thats op policy
exploration idea got a single weakness: exploring new lands becomes obsolate after mid game.(or very not required)
by this you can simply pick policy early game and when it become useless you can disable it.
if expansion idea balanced properly(I belive it will be with new colonist mechanic and policies) this policy is great pick for nations like france that are not intrested in new world but desire colonizing africa
also a good choice as sweden if you conquered muscovy before he formed russia letting you colonize siberia with full force non stop
yes exploration is better but when you no longer need it also stays there and hold a slotHuh no, that's not a weakness, specially when getting Exploration early will likely make you the discoverer of those lands.
Everything Expansion does, Exploration does better. Exploration's +25% Global Tariffs blows the whole Expansion group out of the water. If Sweden wants to colonize Siberia, they should try using two colonists instead of one lmao. Both would also grow their provinces faster too. Or just use one in a colony and the other to increase development in your cities - still beats anything Expansion can do.
Worst thing is that the +1 Colonist Native Advancement, Inti/Maya/Nahuatl Religious Reform, and Third Rome-less's Siberian Frontier all give this "reveal province neighbouring colony" modifier already. But Expansion doesn't. The group that only has one colonist doesn't get it, while the group that gets two can also hire Explorers/Conquistadores. Top-notch balance there.
Also, why would France ignore the Americas? Pretty sure Caribbean feeds into one of their nodes.
Mandatory Service: (Reelection Cost -10% OR Legitimacy/etc bonuses, Female Generals/Advisors) - Reelection Cost appears to be a modifier that makes it cheaper to re-elect leaders in a Republic. This seems good, but unless your terms are only a year long, it's less valuable than a normal Republican Tradition modifier of equivalent level. 10% Reelection cost saves you .25 tradition per election cycle year, whereas +0.25 republican tradition per year does the same thing, but it also saves you Republican Tradition even if you don't re-elect, your ruler dies, etc. Saving Republican Tradition can be still very powerful as it results in more MP as time goes on, but the other bonus here is just an aesthetic one and functionally useless. So this is sort of like half a policy, it's only giving one real bonus. Also, I laughed at "ai_will_do { factor = 0 }"
Don't worry, they're still disadvantaged by pure geography. Uniting India will run you far enough over your state+territory cap that you get corruption for doing it. But owning the whole thing from Italy? Just fine - throw everything in a trade company and actually get better raw profit than territories, even before all the trade power and funneling all that trade value into your home node.It feels like Indian states will be too strong. A lot of things looks like they were done just to create new level of power.
Like, 33% production efficiency, +1 AT etc. Feels like "Buff it to the sky, so people will be interested". Maybe I'm wrong, though it felt same with other DLCs (especially Third Rome).
Don't worry, they're still disadvantaged by pure geography. Uniting India will run you far enough over your state+territory cap that you get corruption for doing it. But owning the whole thing from Italy? Just fine - throw everything in a trade company and actually get better raw profit than territories, even before all the trade power and funneling all that trade value into your home node.
Oh, you are right. I didn't know about corruption for huge conquest. But now I have another thought - will Russia suffer for colonizing Siberia and conquering Horde lands? You can't even convert the latter if you won't make territories states.
Don't worry, they're still disadvantaged by pure geography. Uniting India will run you far enough over your state+territory cap that you get corruption for doing it. But owning the whole thing from Italy? Just fine - throw everything in a trade company and actually get better raw profit than territories, even before all the trade power and funneling all that trade value into your home node.
That and Russia gets +30 states from its Age of Revolutions ability.
Which is in the end game where you're not gonna state those provinces meaning that Russia will remain with a huge part of Central Asia being Muslim, and I'm not talking about Turkestan.That and Russia gets +30 states from its Age of Revolutions ability.
At the very earliest it can hit in 1710.Isn't age of Revolutions a bit late? I will get whole Siberia before 1600 (alongside most of PLC and whole Steppe).
Isn't age of Revolutions a bit late? I will get whole Siberia before 1600 (alongside most of PLC and whole Steppe).
I don't think so, no.So basically unless you intend to switch to a different government type you will have finalized your government within 40 years.
My fault, I read "up to 10 per year" as "one every 10 years".I don't think so, no.