Who else is staying?

[Ciccillo Rre]

Same feeling here, I went to bed at 3am yesterday playing CK2 with CK3 installed and all. I still want to do the megacampaign of my dreams (Hellenic-Roman restoration, and then WC in EU4, and maybe Galaxy Conquest as the Romans in Stellaris). Shame that I failed again at it yesterday (it started nicely, but I failed to break the Umayyad blob in a Crusade for Aquitaine, then my realm broke apart from the inside). But I will do it at some point.

 

[oIMADMANIo]

Same feeling here, I went to bed at 3am yesterday playing CK2 with CK3 installed and all. I still want to do the megacampaign of my dreams (Hellenic-Roman restoration, and then WC in EU4, and maybe Galaxy Conquest as the Romans in Stellaris). Shame that I failed again at it yesterday (it started nicely, but I failed to break the Umayyad blob in a Crusade for Aquitaine, then my realm broke apart from the inside). But I will do it at some point.

Yeap - there is so much PDX Grand Strategy to play that there is no need to rush to CKIII that only can improve over time as every PDX game did.

I preordered CKIII cause I want to enjoy thge release and to support the franchise - playin CKIII only in MP with a friend and doin the serious stuff solo in CKII xD
CKIII brings much new interesting ideas to the table and at the moment I wish I could merge CKII and III for their best features to have them in a single game.


greetings

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I preordered CKIII cause I want to enjoy the release and to support the franchise

Same here

 

[Mortrag]

Still a lot interessting achievements are open and I haven't played with random and shattered worlds so far. So there is more than enough left for me in CK II.

 

[JtW]

I wasn't even going to buy CK3. My rig is below the minimum spec for it, and I only just bought Holy Fury and some other expansions like a month back. However, I preordered CK3 on impulse since you can get a refund on Steam if it doesn't run, and it turns out to be surprisingly playable on my computer. I started a campaign to test it out, and I have to say that the increased character focus (the stress system for example) really does it for me.

I have an incomplete CK2 campaign where I created an empire as Ghana, conquered most of Africa, reformed the religion and went feudal (from a Charlemagne start), and I was so engrossed in it. But now I don't want to go back anymore.

So yeah, I'm very surprised but I'm likely not staying (or may come back once the honeymoon period is over, who knows.)

On topic of DLCs, I was late to most PDX releases and felt overwhelmed by the DLC backlog. I have the full intention to buy all CK3 DLCs as they release them unless they mess up the game along the way. It's been absolutely wonderful for me so far.

 

[Dahoota]

Playing CK3 right now feels a lot like my experience when Stellaris came out - the first play through was amazing and emersive. But the lack of depth in the content of the game means replays are boring as it's essentially the same experience no matter where you play on the map. Catholics and Byzantines are the same, Muslims not that much different. Pagans have a few interesting things happening, but not that much really.

So, once I'm done with my current CK3 playthrough to see what the late game and late tech looks like, I'll be back into CK2 until a few DLCs are out I think.

 

[Prinz Eugen]

My computer just doesn't have the specs needed for CK III, so I am staying in CK II, since there are also still a lot of playthroughs I lack.

 

[Fediuld76]

I for one am staying right here and not making the move to CK3. I will eventually I'm sure, after several patches and a couple DLC's with accompanying free content.
For now though I'm gonna enjoy the game I spent so much money on and am not even close to being done with.

Here's to hoping an actually stale franchise will get love one day! That I'll buy day one.

I am staying. CK2 is the better game and in 5y times we might see where CK3 will be but atm ain't worth the money and I am of those who get annoyed when reading in the forum "CK3 is great game because it will be better after few DLCs in several years time". In several years time we shall see then if is better than CK2, atm is not.


I have clocked over 1100 hours on CK2 and this weekend started trying to get the Reconquista going. Always found Asturias daunting and never touched it (even the tutorial fails), however after all the time and Holy Fury I feel is one of the most fun places to play. That from someone who has over 500 hours playing with Republics and especially devil spawn Patricians, laughing like a maniac in the middle of the night.

Hell just found out about reinforcement traits on educators and how monks & nuns can boost your heir stats randomly to ridiculous level. After all those years and over one thousand hours!!!!!

FYI Was surprised to test the advice and got a 18/17/15/13/13 heir and wasn't satan's child!!!
(usually they do get some crazy stats from the cradle).

 

[DPS]

I wasn't even going to buy CK3. My rig is below the minimum spec for it, and I only just bought Holy Fury and some other expansions like a month back. However, I preordered CK3 on impulse since you can get a refund on Steam if it doesn't run,

While I have no interest in getting CKIII anytime soon, I will say that if your sole or primary reason for not getting it is that your computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run it, you might want to go ahead and give it a try. My computer doesn't meet the minimums for CKII, Stellaris, or EUIV, but they all run fine on it.

 

[knppel]

I might have bought new hardware to play ck3 but ck2 will also just run better on it

 

[Mauer]

Playing CK3 right now feels a lot like my experience when Stellaris came out - the first play through was amazing and emersive. But the lack of depth in the content of the game means replays are boring as it's essentially the same experience no matter where you play on the map. Catholics and Byzantines are the same, Muslims not that much different. Pagans have a few interesting things happening, but not that much really.

So, once I'm done with my current CK3 playthrough to see what the late game and late tech looks like, I'll be back into CK2 until a few DLCs are out I think.

I'm on the exact same boat, I plan on finishing my current CK3 game and come back, there's not enough content to hold my interest atm (and the game needs a lot of bugfixes).

 

[Vasious]

I m staying with CK2

Watched a few Lets plays and I see how if it was your first CK game it would be the one to go with but there is just so much in CK2 to leave behind

 

[LSF]

Since EU3, my policy has been to only buy games when they're definitively finished, stick a fork in it, done. Paradox releasing two more expansions after EU3 "Complete Edition" (sic) really pissed me off.

I was playing CK1 until early this year, when I noticed that CK2 was in fact done (and the base game was free, even). I expect to pick up CK3 sometime between 2028 and never, depending on how it turns out. There's still an enormous amount for me to do in CK2 - three active games, none of which have yet gone more than 150 years (and they're 867 starts, so lots of time left on the clock); quite a few ideas for future games once those are done and I have more time.

Re: the OP's signature, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a Vicky 3 someday! Though I'm not convinced Paradox would do a good job of it...

Playing CK1 untill 2020 with CK2 available for so many years, and with CK2 so much better than CK1... err... it was not a good move to speak frankly...

 

[Dukasaur]

Yeah, it's funny. I bough the original Crusader Kings when CK2 was already in the works. Played it for years. When I finally got bored with it, moved on to other things instead of CK2.

After many years, I finally came back and bought CK2, only to find CK3 already in the works. Deja vu!

I've still got lots of things to do in CK2 that I haven't tried. Lots of playing time left! When I get bored with it, I'll probably turn to other things rather than CK3.

I'll probably come back and buy CK3 just in time for them to release CK4!

 

[Atomcreator]

I got CK3 for free ( it was a birthday gift ). Played about 20 hours. Its not a bad game, its clearly more polished than usual for PDX games at launch. However, I've noticed some very serious issues that have wrecked my games and also its obviously not as deep as CK2. Vikings are absolute hell in the 867 start, when playing in the British isles, which is how it should be I guess.
I just feel like there is too much missing. And we all know why.

 

[yxan92]

I am staying for sure I kinda wish I wasn't since the game really does look amazing. But no ledger, less map modes, no message options, no keybinding settings and me just not liking the current ui is a deal breaker for me personally. All of my issues could probably be fixed with mods but for some reason just messing with key bindings alone disables achievements which is ridiculous. Still they really hit it out of the park tho considering it's a new game and all also comparing it to all recent paradox games and dlc releases.

 

[D_Train2k]

I bought the Royal Edition of CK3 and I'll probably be sticking with CK2. You just don't get the same kind of emergent story telling in CK3 that you do in CK2 and that's mainly why I play. Some of the reasons why I think this is are as follows:

(i) More direct control over your character in CK3. Want to get better at waging war? Just click the marshal skill tree and wait for your lifestyle experience to tick up. No need for your character to actually join battles or live his life. Do you have a gluttonous liege? Rather than spending some time with ascetic monks who may tech you the way of temperance, just pay some stress and click the lose weight button.

(ii) Lack of Unknown Consequences: In CK2 you often didn't know exactly what the results of your actions would be, especially if it is your first time with a new mechanic. And even if you are on your 1000th hour of CK2, the MTTH system means that you even if you know what will happen, you don't necessarily know when. In CK3 every dilemma tells you exactly what your chances of a certain outcome will be, every advisor action tells you when it will be completed with a countdown bar, and knowing all these outcomes ahead of time prevents the game from being able to surprise me.

(iii) Less meaningful interactions with vassals/courtiers: In general, I find myself far less attached to the characters in the world and view them mostly as game pieces. Have 5 kids? Well that's 5 alliances since I get the alliance at betrothal. Additionally, with single heir succession being locked until the last 1/3 of the game, I really don't care very much about my other kids and usually prefer to sabotage them to make the upcoming inheritance war easier.

Unhappy Vassals in CK3? Well it doesn't affect how much gold or levies you're getting (in fact, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between your levies and vassal levies anyway). It also doesn't really affect realm management since the council barely gets to weigh in on decisions any more. Even if I do have a reason to make a vassal happy (changing inheritance laws, for example), all I do is right click them and click sway which doesn't even seem to give skill specific event chains to sway them anymore. Can't invite them out drinking, can't avoid raising their levies as levies no longer affect a vassal's opinion of you, can't join the same secret society as them, etc. So the result is that there is very little reason to interact with your vassals apart from keeping them out of factions and even when you do interact, the interactions are pretty shallow and gamey.


Unfortunately, most of my complaints about CK3 appear to be conscious design decisions rather than a lack of content, so I am not holing out much hope that CK3 will be the game for me in the future.

 

[Sanny]

Me. No message settings and no ledger = usability nightmare. Not going to pay money just to subject myself to that.

You’re completely right though. i’m shocked there are no message settings in CKIII. The UI spam is horrendous as a result.

For me though as someone else mentioned the distinction between your levies and your vassals levies is non-existent, this makes fighting factions potentially rather dangerous if you’re not clear about the numbers involved. CK2 the numbers were there at a clear glance.

I’ll probably still play both. CKIII is immersive as hell and I love it. But for CK2 too haven’t much tried out the new Crusade mechanics all that much. On my first try I put my sister on the throne of Jerusalem which was entertaining, I was showered with prestige and gold.

 

[Mauer]

I bought the Royal Edition of CK3 and I'll probably be sticking with CK2. You just don't get the same kind of emergent story telling in CK3 that you do in CK2 and that's mainly why I play. Some of the reasons why I think this is are as follows:

(i) More direct control over your character in CK3. Want to get better at waging war? Just click the marshal skill tree and wait for your lifestyle experience to tick up. No need for your character to actually join battles or live his life. Do you have a gluttonous liege? Rather than spending some time with ascetic monks who may tech you the way of temperance, just pay some stress and click the lose weight button.

(ii) Lack of Unknown Consequences: In CK2 you often didn't know exactly what the results of your actions would be, especially if it is your first time with a new mechanic. And even if you are on your 1000th hour of CK2, the MTTH system means that you even if you know what will happen, you don't necessarily know when. In CK3 every dilemma tells you exactly what your chances of a certain outcome will be, every advisor action tells you when it will be completed with a countdown bar, and knowing all these outcomes ahead of time prevents the game from being able to surprise me.

(iii) Less meaningful interactions with vassals/courtiers: In general, I find myself far less attached to the characters in the world and view them mostly as game pieces. Have 5 kids? Well that's 5 alliances since I get the alliance at betrothal. Additionally, with single heir succession being locked until the last 1/3 of the game, I really don't care very much about my other kids and usually prefer to sabotage them to make the upcoming inheritance war easier.

Unhappy Vassals in CK3? Well it doesn't affect how much gold or levies you're getting (in fact, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between your levies and vassal levies anyway). It also doesn't really affect realm management since the council barely gets to weigh in on decisions any more. Even if I do have a reason to make a vassal happy (changing inheritance laws, for example), all I do is right click them and click sway which doesn't even seem to give skill specific event chains to sway them anymore. Can't invite them out drinking, can't avoid raising their levies as levies no longer affect a vassal's opinion of you, can't join the same secret society as them, etc. So the result is that there is very little reason to interact with your vassals apart from keeping them out of factions and even when you do interact, the interactions are pretty shallow and gamey.


Unfortunately, most of my complaints about CK3 appear to be conscious design decisions rather than a lack of content, so I am not holing out much hope that CK3 will be the game for me in the future.

You put into words my feelings about the game very well, I'll just add that the grand strategy side of the game is also much less interesting as making claims and converting cultures and religions of counties is trivial now.

 

[MateuszS]

Bought CK3, didn't work on my PC, refunded. I'm going to buy new laptop anyway, so it should fit into min requirements, wait couple of months (years?) and then buy CK3 again. For now, I have societies + artifacts.