With EU4's launch of Leviathian, big thanks to Imperator's devs for making 2.0 so smooth!

[Snow Crystal]

1) Iron Century
2) CKII feels more feature complete than CKIII, not to mention Im a complete Roman nutcase and like the Imperial elections that were implemented in HF. No Roman flavour is a key issue for me in CKIII.
3) I don’t like the UI and the gloom, unlike the cheery parchments that I received detailing my removal of the enunch trait. If I wanted gloom, I would just read a newspaper irl.
4) I don’t get why a game so recent done with Holy Fury gets a sequel but us poor fans still have to wait for Victoria III, spare us
5) When I watched the livestreams etc, CKIII felt incredibly easy. There was no pushback from the AI etc, no real challenge once u got abit of money. Whilst this is also true in CKII I don’t think it’s to the same extent.

I do think by the end of the games cycle, CKIII will be better, the game has got an incredibly good base to start with. But as of now I think I have nostalgia for the potato characters in CKII.

Not Lambert, but Imperator atm doesn’t distinguish between ports with a natural Harbour and those who do not: the ability to build ports in every territory seems abit off as a result.

This would work very well with a trade update to the game, just to throw it out there *nudge nudge wink wink*

1. There is no good come-back from this one. Hands down your best argument. (I might be biased.)
2. I disagree. CK2 has more content, this isn't wrong, but I often felt like the content was put in the game in a poor way. You had a lot of ad-hoc content systems (see Societies, as a good example). These would be incredibly repetitive, often feel very limited, and just generally bloat the game in a poor way, rather than play well with the other systems in the game. That is not to say CK3 isn't clearly missing some things, like flavour for the ERE, but I assume that will come at some point.
3. You are of course free to subjectively think the CK2 UI is better looking, but I think there's no argument about the UX differences between the UI of CK2 and CK3. I have tried introducing people to both games, and boy is that a difference.
4. There is no sparing, there is only pain.
5. I don't think there's a notable difference in difficulty between CK2 and CK3, I think that's only a perception based on CK3 being a lot more an intuitive a game than CK2 ever was. I might be entirely wrong here though, but that has been my impression.


As for Imperator and ports. I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece. You have no idea how many arguments we've had on the CD team over what ports we should have, and where they should go. What you got was the result of us going "Alright, we shouldn't have more than X ports in any given province.", and tried to find what fit best from a game feel point of view. It has little to nothing to do with "natural harbours".

 

[Ducky251]

I mean I loved CKII (2300 hours speak for itself!) but CK3...oh my...5 hours and I was done...I haven’t played it since the day it came out

I just found it dull...also it suffered from having an amazing predecessor with so many more features...if CKII didn’t exist I would give it a 8 or 9 out of 10, but CK2 does exist so I have it a 4

Also, cutting the number of start dates from over 98000 to 2 seemed...well...interpret how you will...since CKII already had the data for province ownership, you could argue most of the research was already done...

 

[Ducky251]

1. There is no good come-back from this one. Hands down your best argument. (I might be biased.)
2. I disagree. CK2 has more content, this isn't wrong, but I often felt like the content was put in the game in a poor way. You had a lot of ad-hoc content systems (see Societies, as a good example). These would be incredibly repetitive, often feel very limited, and just generally bloat the game in a poor way, rather than play well with the other systems in the game. That is not to say CK3 isn't clearly missing some things, like flavour for the ERE, but I assume that will come at some point.
3. You are of course free to subjectively think the CK2 UI is better looking, but I think there's no argument about the UX differences between the UI of CK2 and CK3. I have tried introducing people to both games, and boy is that a difference.
4. There is no sparing, there is only pain.
5. I don't think there's a notable difference in difficulty between CK2 and CK3, I think that's only a perception based on CK3 being a lot more an intuitive a game than CK2 ever was. I might be entirely wrong here though, but that has been my impression.


As for Imperator and ports. I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece. You have no idea how many arguments we've had on the CD team over what ports we should have, and where they should go. What you got was the result of us going "Alright, we shouldn't have more than X ports in any given province.", and tried to find what fit best from a game feel point of view. It has little to nothing to do with "natural harbours".

Surely a possible solution to the ports issue then is a similar system to the new fort limits? With technologies in the civic tree to increase the limit?

 

[Marcus Pica]

I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece.

Thats what I have been saying. Consider geographical scales Lambert

 

[Lord Lambert]

Why is that?

Imperator having only certain territories have the ability to build ships was something kind of unique to it, and I feel that has been lost now that you can just build ports everywhere. Not ever coastline is created equally, and theres a big difference in the natural terrain required to build a large harbour vs some small dock used to build fishing boats. I think the change to allow ports to be built everywhere was like, the only negative of the Marius update and I still dislike it after playing a crap ton of this patch

I think the idea to build port levels is great, and I really do like that, but I wish it had been restricted back to the original port territories we've had since pre-Marius.

 

[Torugu]

I started playing CK2 in 2013 (with the release of The Old Gods.

I have 980 hours in CK2. I currently have 660 hours in CK3. Guess which of the two has done a better job keeping me engaged.


I think a big part of it is that CK3 feels more like a strategy game, and less like medieval Sims. Which is a good thing if you're a Strategy player like me, but might be a problem if you really like to play Sims with CK2.

As for Imperator and ports. I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece. You have no idea how many arguments we've had on the CD team over what ports we should have, and where they should go. What you got was the result of us going "Alright, we shouldn't have more than X ports in any given province.", and tried to find what fit best from a game feel point of view. It has little to nothing to do with "natural harbours".

I couldn't agree more. And besides, IR is an empire builder. If I want to raze Alexandria so I can build a new centre of Mediterranean trade in the territory next to it I should be able to do that without being limited by arbitrary harbour locations.

Surely a possible solution to the ports issue then is a similar system to the new fort limits? With technologies in the civic tree to increase the limit?

Sure, but... Why? Covering your coast line in ports is already a pretty bad idea. (Actually, the biggest problem I have with the current system is that harbours are so weak, you're often better served getting rid of them...)

 

[antrachton]

I hope the terrible reviews are enough to make PDX to think long and hard about what caused them to so completely miss their strategic goals.

I doubt it - the demand is too high

 

[antrachton]

Imperator having only certain territories have the ability to build ships was something kind of unique to it, and I feel that has been lost now that you can just build ports everywhere. Not ever coastline is created equally, and theres a big difference in the natural terrain required to build a large harbour vs some small dock used to build fishing boats. I think the change to allow ports to be built everywhere was like, the only negative of the Marius update and I still dislike it after playing a crap ton of this patch

I think the idea to build port levels is great, and I really do like that, but I wish it had been restricted back to the original port territories we've had since pre-Marius.

Maybe a limit to ports not having a neighbour territority with a port would be a solution but having a single territority country without possibility to build a port... nope. I think that was a good decision but not a complete one

 

[Lord Lambert]

Maybe a limit to ports not having a neighbour territority with a port would be a solution but having a single territority country without possibility to build a port... nope. I think that was a good decision but not a complete one

I mean... the old solution was perfectly fine. There were predefined port areas on the map. The only issue area, iirc, was Ireland with only 3 ports. But like... who is making a nation out of just Ireland? Terrible idea.

 

[scriptkiddy]

As for Imperator and ports. I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece. You have no idea how many arguments we've had on the CD team over what ports we should have, and where they should go. What you got was the result of us going "Alright, we shouldn't have more than X ports in any given province.", and tried to find what fit best from a game feel point of view. It has little to nothing to do with "natural harbours".

I think that more immersion as well as some tweaks of the mechanics (like message settings for calls to arms or the side quests), and also more attention towards the character system, is what I:R needs with the upcoming DLCs and patches. Please no bloating à la EUIV so that in the end every single tribe will be so unique with countless modifiers and exclusive buttons that the player would just want a new sequel.

 

[antrachton]

I mean... the old solution was perfectly fine. There were predefined port areas on the map. The only issue area, iirc, was Ireland with only 3 ports. But like... who is making a nation out of just Ireland? Terrible idea.

I think that's more for modders - if you want to start a country, new nation, build your bleepy ports yourself and if one has plenty of little city states next to each other - each one of them needs their own port - see ancient Greece maybe?

 

[Torugu]

I mean... the old solution was perfectly fine. There were predefined port areas on the map. The only issue area, iirc, was Ireland with only 3 ports. But like... who is making a nation out of just Ireland? Terrible idea.

Have you tried playing a Greek city state without a starting port before Marius?

I assure you, being unable to build any ships as a coastal nation was not "perfectly fine". Neither was having to navigate your way through the Diadochii network of alliance to snipe that one territory on Crete that would finally let you build your first measly Liburnia.

 

[antrachton]

As the title states. Recently, EU4 launch a new 1.31 update, which was lets say.. controversial among gamers and reviews due to reports of bugs, crashes and insane exploits which made the launch choppier than a choppy ocean full of chopsticks.

This has made me really want to give big kudos to the Imperator devs for making the 2.0 launch relatively speaking very smooth and almost bug free! I have had a geat time with it and think its a fantastic addition to the game, and hoping for more news on the way soon

I only wonder - is it because Imperator Rome hasn't got that many layers of layers of layers on top of each other and changing previous layers?... I mean they have plenty more DLCs in EU4 and that makes testing it unbelievably complex - even if the game itself is not as complex as Imperator Rome - luckily - started to be.

The only thing I don't understand that was left unfixed for the release - was anything like missing icons, unfinished location - they were even present in screenshots published before the release, and no one bothered to change that.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Have you tried playing a Greek city state without a starting port before Marius?

yes.

 

[olivenkranz]

The ports issue:

Perhaps instead of ports you have ‘landings/jetties’; they cannot train ships but slightly increase migration speed and navies can stop and heal, as well as embarking and disembarking troops quickly.

Essentially they’re for boat repair and moving armies, but not building ships.

I think if you could only build ports in cities that would help the strategic element, as you could argue that the cities would have the infrastructure to build a ship whereas a random port would not.

Maybe add a Shipyard building, thats only for cities and metropolises. Ports would lose their build ship ability but would be economic in nature. The shipyard would build ships. Maybe tie the level of the shipyard to the level of the port?

 

[Torugu]

View attachment 711137
yes.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: A coastal Greek minor, I mentioned that in the sentence immediately afterwards, but I suppose I could have been more clear.

So, no, the country that starts every game by take over Sparta in the first 5 months doesn't count.

 

[Ducky251]

Sorry, I should have been more specific: A coastal Greek minor, I mentioned that in the sentence immediately afterwards, but I suppose I could have been more clear.

So, no, the country that starts every game by take over Sparta in the first 5 months doesn't count.

I agree that there needs to be options - try Hermione or Troizen...

I know people won’t like it as it reduces the strategy...but you can’t limit them to just cities as then barbarian nations can’t build ships.

Also there are still some limits on ports - navigable rivers are very selective about where they can be built!

 

[Lord Lambert]

Sorry, I should have been more specific: A coastal Greek minor, I mentioned that in the sentence immediately afterwards, but I suppose I could have been more clear.

So, no, the country that starts every game by take over Sparta in the first 5 months doesn't count.

As a non-ported Greek city state, I would argue that your immediate goal would be less about getting a port and more about just grabbing as much land as possible so you have the money to survive. Having a port is great, yes, but without more land you wont have the money to do anything with that port anyway.

Oh and just to humour you, yes I have. Funnily enough it was sponsored by Paradox too

 

[Torugu]

View attachment 711141

As a non-ported Greek city state, I would argue that your immediate goal would be less about getting a port and more about just grabbing as much land as possible so you have the money to survive. Having a port is great, yes, but without more land you wont have the money to do anything with that port anyway.

Oh and just to humour you, yes I have. Funnily enough it was sponsored by Paradox too

I assume that's a picture of you moving the goal post?

Because the point wasn't what is the best strategy (much less to conduct a deep dive into your recording history). Rather it was to point out that it's incredibly silly that a coastal nation, which relied heavily on fishing for its survival, and in some case had some fairly impressive historical harbours, can't build any ships whatsoever. All just because at some dev meeting it was decided that this province's 3 "harbour slots" went to other territories.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I assume that's a picture of you moving the goal post?

Oh please do humour me and explain how that is something I have done hahaha

Rather it was to point out that it's incredibly silly that a coastal nation, which relied heavily on fishing for its survival, and in some case had some fairly impressive historical harbours, can't build any ships whatsoever.

There is a stark difference between the infrastructure needed to build fishing ships and warships.