Minor correction from the statement around 9:30 You could play as any date between late 1066 and sometime in 1337. Between 769 and 1066 you could only pick the 769 start date, 867 start date, and later on 936 start date.
One thing I prefer about ck2 over ck3 is the raising of troops. In ck2, troops are raised in the provinces of the vassel they come from, and must move to consolidate. In ck3, troops are all raised wherever you want. In the former system, it takes time for large empires to mobilise, so there was an opportunity for smaller powers to come in with a smaller, more quickly gathered force and wipe out some troops before withdrawing and hoping you got enough. Now the most you can do is maybe siege down a county or two before you have to face the full might of the empire you face. I would have prefered if troops in ck2 had to gather from their individual provinces to make it a lengthier process, but as it is the process is better than in ck3.
Yes, it's just ridiculous that if let's say I'm raiding Sardinia the full army of the holy roman empire shows up from thin air before I can even finish a siege of 15 days
It still takes time to muster an army, but now you can't snipe all the little armies moving to the capital. For large empires it will take weeks to muster the entire army, just like in CK2...
That was tedius bs. Especially the ships. I prefer the streamline. That AI has always been ridiculous to exploit. Just because it appears more complex, doesn't mean it is or fun. If it's realism you want, this game needs to be totally redone. You can also still do it that way, along with quick mods forcing it on the computer.
@@ItIsYouAreNotYour There isn't that much tedium if you properly set up rally points beforehand, because the troops will automatically move and unify into one army at that location. Ships are also important as they change tactical flexibility. The way to get more flexibility is to build more ships, but then you are slowing your scaling as you cannot build money or troop buildings. Depending on your situation ships may be more important, though this is largely the case in Scandinavia and the British Isles. I did multiplayer, and regrouping armies was an important strategic consideration. One way to ameliorate it was to, when you got large enough, give king tier vassals a province far from their land so you can raise their troops there. Fairly gamey though, and while not banned it was deemed a poor show. This solution is also quite late on.
Troops in CK3 still have to travel trom the area they come from to the muster point. The time it takes to raise an army in CK3 is still dependent on the size of the territory the troops are drawn from. To measure this, set a few different muster points and measure the time it takes when you click the 'raise local troops' button vs the time it takes when you click the 'raise all' button. The difference is that in CK3, mustering troops don't visibly travel over the map anymore, so you don't get a few 100 armies of a few 100 soldiers each grinding performance to a halt every time a large empire goes to war.
I get the feeling that the first 2 chapters were mostly planned from release, hence why the DLC content covered isnt really responsive to what the community has desperately wanted for a while now, like empire content, republic content and theocracy content. I wouldnt be surprised if we saw the major expansion for chapter 3 be byzantine, HRE and generally empire related, and one or two flavour packs for republics and/or theocracy. Altho the catholic church and its influences ought to be a major expansion too.
@@Soul_TomatoIt's strange to me because Paradox was always on the more entrepreneurial side both in terms of game design and business model innovation. It would be weird to hear how suddenly inflexible they got if that was the case, any pre-production and planning already done could have been saved for later after all.
@@pl-AEtheRR Let's not forget that there was the whole Corona panic when it was being developed as well. It might have had an effect on their decision making, I don't know.
@@Soul_Tomato they confirmed this is the case, they wanted to do these and then build off it. Legacy of Persia was the first one made with player data
My personal feelings are that CK2 felt like an imperfect simulation of that period. While CK3 feels too zany somehow. Especially when it comes to morality, so much is played for laughs, like a funny skit.
Idk if I’d completely agree but I can see where you’re coming from. But you can literally become immortal and do a bunch of other ridiculous stuff in CK2. I think CK3 just has terribly written court events - like the bad smelling courtier among others - as well as some other awkward events. CK2 was definitely not lacking in its fantasy so idk if that’s a good comparison.
Ck2 was often ridiculous These events were mainly locked behind insanity or possession. Or extremely rare CK3 and it's claymation characters playing the God damn Sims. Turning everything into an overly dramatic joke Feels like it's appealing even harder to the hecking redditorinoos and youtube content over what made CK2 great
I always disliked that there was no naval combat in ck2, and ck3 reduced it further. Now there is no opportunity for one region having not enough ships and having to decide between going on a long trip overland or ferrying troops piecemeal while risking them being wiped out by your enemy. There is no longer the risk of being caught by a stronger enemy and being unable to flee because of too few boats. Now it is just pay the fee and get on the boats. It is like there is a medieval ferrying service anywhere in the world that you just have to pay a flat fee to access.
to be honest, i dont know what modern Paradox has against developing a fleshed-out naval system. Both CK3 and Vic3 might as well have no bodies of water whatsoever because of how poorly treated crossing bodies of water is, when historically it's always been a pain for any nation, big or small, to move troops across seas. Even more egregious when you consider during that same era of history CK3 is in that the Mongols, the greatest army in the world, was thwarted from fully utilizing the extent of its military power in conquering Japan because of bad weather. Meanwhile in-game, every coastline in the known world apparently has boat merchants you can just borrow transports from for a monthly fee. Even in Northern Russia, you can somehow transfer 50k troops by sea, they're all just cozy in their boats suffering minimal attrition and barely a landing penalty. Atleast in CK2 you needed to have a fleet to transfer, AND the longer you spend time in the seas the more fucked your army gets from attrition and scurvy. 10+ years after those game mechanics and somehow things got worse, especially considering CK2 already had mediocre naval gameplay. Vic 3 might even have it worse, yeah you can build ships for the most simple naval combat but once war fronts are established overseas somehow your 200k troops can magically move to the front untouched. When in reality GPs like the UK and the USA were the most prosperous nations of that era for the main reason that they can keep warfare as far away from their core land as possible. The naval invasion kinda makes up for it a bit but it's too simple and at the same time opaque.
I still prefer CK2 personally from a content & performance perspective. I do prefer the ability to travel in CK3, but overall CK2 is more enjoyable, and runs better. I miss having Republics, and I would love to see MORE government types, and an expansion to all of them. Nomadic/Adventurer, Tribal, Merchant Republic, Clerical.
Yea, but one has had 6 more years of development, so I think it's fair that one lacks as much content than the other. Like, in terms of quality compared to the previous respective title, CK3 is probably the best Paradox release we've had for a long time.
I think a big dlc CK3 could do that isnt something CK2 had is an expansion around playing as unlanded characters theres tons of interesting things that could be done and the roleplay and simulation mechanics they could add would be great but i also really want to see republics and a trade overhaul first
Yea, I agree, there's already a ton that you can do in the game that's not related to land, so adding some more stuff to make them playable wouldn't be so difficult. Imagine being able to join tournaments and trying to convince your liege to grant you land. It'd also be cool because if you get deposed, you continue to play as your character and then garner support for your claim.
I agree. So annoying that a family / dynasty you have built up since 1066 hits game over because you're playing your 3rd born daughter who is fighting factions and dethroned. You're unlanded so it's game over. But you could go on to remarry and fight your claim, or you play on as your unlanded son who has claim to throne.
Heck, even playing a baron could be interesting. I never understood why they finally put baronies on the map in CK3 but didn't make them playable. Playing as unlanded sounds like a cool concept too.
From what I've heard from interviews with PDX CK3's development is deliberately slower paced. CK2's fast development lead to a messy codebase which is what eventually put an end to further development, they're trying to avoid the same pitfall by taking it slower this time.
That's 100% bullshit given the ease at which they were able to update CK2 and the vast gulf in how easy it is to mod CK2 vs the mess that modding CK3 is. They saw that CK2 was getting big on reddit and with gimmicky youtube channels, and that it was an old game and they decided to make a new one with all of the wacky bits that get karma and likes at the forefront and stopped developing CK2 because they didn't need it to make money anymore.
one thing I miss alot is like guilds from ck2, where you could become a berserker via the guild and get quests to do in order to get better standing or increase your standing or rank in them
As CK3 leans more into roleplay, I would love something like "happyness" as an opposite to stress. Also something like "dreams" could be added: Like a goal you can put on your dynasty (for example converting smth, forming smth, getting rich af).
Paradox could incorporate dreams with prophecies and current stress mechanics, like the ones characters received by hermits and mystics in travel. Influenced, hunted or even possessed by the ambiguous words told be seers sounds very medieval to me.
I also support a 476 start date, i'm of the opinion that the design philosophy of Ck3 actually works perfectly within the dark ages, way more than within the high middle ages themselves (to be clear this is in no way shape or form a negative view towards ck3 of my part) so a fall of rome or at least a post Heraclius bookmark is not unreasonable.
It will never happen, because the lack of an image of Muhammed would be glaring for people, and cause controversy. Even in CK3 you might note that they blocked out his face.
That would actually be an amazing subject for a different game itself! It would be reductive and anti-historical to put it in this game. I'd rather have a game which lets you play one of the various barbarian factions like Visigoths, Lombards, Vandals, Huns ecc, as well as the Eastern Roman Empire and the Arabs still mostly set in the middle east. Some barbarian tribes desired and partially succeeded at integrating in the Roman world and establish a cultural and political continuum with it, like Visigoths and Lombards. Other like the Huns were raiders and didn't give two sh1ts. Many campaigns you could do, such as Justinian's Renovatio Imperii, not to mention religion with the Schism and so on. Or either being on the attacking or defending side in the Arab conquest of north Africa and Spain and partially Italy. Ecc ecc. Tons of material, never put in a game as far as I know
One thing they have done wrong with start dates is making hellenism dead when it was still around into the 800s at the latest in a public form, surviving into the early middle ages as a more rural and private religion due to years of segregation and second class citizenship. It would be cool if counties in the more mountainous regions in the greek and bulgarian balkans and anatolia could have hellenism as their culture at the 800s start date to simulate this real history even if it isnt super well known where exactly it had survived so long.
@@ericfisher1360well if you start in the 400s, unless they put in an event, islam would never be created in this alternative history and we would continue with middle eastern polytheism, hellenist groups, and various abrahamics such as jews, mandaens, gnostic groups, and those who had followed abraham (what morphed into modern islam) If you played frkm the 470s on, without a triggering event, there would not be islam, and you would play in a still largely polythiest, and zoroastrian middle east. Making for a very different world where islam had not dethroned multiple then major religions. It also means they dont have to figure out how to depict mohamed without someone getting upset about it. If you go back through the lineages of caliphs/sayyids in ck3 for example, he is depicted simply by his symbol and has no form at all.
"Why don't they have more start dates" they made it very clear during development that they will not be adding any more start dates aside from the two existing ones. Main reason they cite is that constantly needing to update the histories for every start date whenever a new feature is added takes an immense amount of time which is fair.
It’s a shame they didn’t include the iron century start date. I always thought it was the best mix between the total chaos of the 800s and the established realms by 1066
Now, I only heard about this through a Reddit thread and haven’t confirmed it myself, so take the following with a grain of salt. But supposedly in a previous forum post, one of the CK3 devs said that merchant republics are low priority currently, which is absolutely heart-breaking to hear. As you said in the video, they’re a crucial component of the medieval fabric, and just not being able to play as them or interact with them meaningfully makes the world feel that much more shallow.
I’ll be honest, I can’t play CK3 without mods. There is so much content which was not added to CK3 that already existed in CK2 and it feels shallow without it. However, I do not feel that was entirely because of the 9+ years of development for CK2. I played CK2 for years, hundreds of hours, before I eventually tipped my toes into mods. I felt like the base CK3 experience was bland to begin with.
My biggest problem with CK3 is the personality system. Personality traits are way too static, and they usually don't change within a lifetime. Once a character aquired a personality trait, it will stick until their death. Something that is not realistic and barely the case IRL. In reality, we learn from experience and change over time. Certain life-changing events can have a huge impact on your personality. Also, you only have three or so personalities and four or more is really, really rare. In CK2, the personality traits were sometimes perhaps too fluid, but overall much more enjoyable. It felt like living a life as a dfferent person whereas in CK3 it feels like whatever happens you stay the same. By the way, if anyone knows a mod that somehow changes the way personality works, feel free to tell me.
I generally pefer a lot of the quality of life with CK2 especially the fabrication of claims. I missing the College of Cardinals, the Imperial mechanics of Byzantines, Merchant republics, the Reaper Due mechanics, China and events maybe it is me I will like they missing alot of things to do, especially with the events. If I had to choose two it would be Merchant Republics and Byzantine Imperial mechanics.
@Soul_Tomato That would be nice. I hope to see merchant republics afterwards or a bit later if they do something with the tribals with the horse Lords but it was bit of a mess from memory in CK2.
Even if I think there are some structural problems in Ck3 gameplay which may be harder to fix or just require more effort (too easy to climb the whole ladder in a lifetime, once you're emperor nothing to do, tribal only feels like a step before becoming feudal rather than having its own dignity, REPUBLICS etc.) I think Paradox could HUGELY improve the feeling of the game by just writing more events. I imagine it would cost them very little to write more events which are original, different for every culture, and maybe some of them could also be a little strange (i miss that from ck2). At the moment I could be playing in India and I would get the same event I would get as an Asatru in Norway. It's not super bad, but surely gets boring fast.
They don't want to make the game too fun at any point so you will buy new DLCs with the hope of getting more content and having more fun playing it. It is kind of like the diabolical freemium model where you don't want your players having too much fun with what they already have and instead want them to focus on more content (including cosmetic). I don't think more events will make the game less of what it is right now: a visual novel with semi-randomly generated story bits.
@@ua2894 The DLC issues is the thing i decided never buy another paradox dlc, ill buy the game, but once it gets to expensive ill just pirate it. Fuck their greedy asses, I like them games but not their business model
I think they did polling and it showed not many people played republics, horse lords or the later start dates so they haven’t prioritised those as an inclusion. I think if they are moving away from just adding stuff from ck3 we might not expect these to make a comeback in the way they were in ck2.
I smell pre-determined BS. Just take a look at how many people played AGOT and most if not all of them enjoyed having an option to play Essos (republic). I mean you have like every week on r/AGOT people asking about Essos. Now considering it's not only those people asking for republics, I really don't see only minority of us wanting that.
I agree we need more start dates, but the devs have said no Charlemagne DLC because it is just too early. They had to make up a lot of the map during that period. 867 is imo a good early start for the game even if in CK2 I loved Charlemagne start. A DLC which added some others, like Century of Iron, the Alexiad, 1204 Latin Empire, Rise of Mongols and Late Medieval like CK2 would be wonderful though. Shorter games if you want, removal of the Byzantine powerhouse opening up Anatolia and Greece and a start with our lovely Great Khan Temujin taking over everything to spice things up.
To add onto what another commentor suggested, I would love a DLC where you could play as an unlanded character like that one CK2 mod. It would improve the RP aspect tenfold if they just made that simple addition because, really, it would make sense. If you're deposed and reduced to being unlanded, you don't magically get booted out of your dynasty, it would be ridiculous. But CK is basically hardcoded to rationalize things as "if you have no land, you're irrelevant." Completely ignoring the staple mechanic of Claimants. Just something that I didn't give much thought to until CK3 came out with a more versatile engine. If anything, it should be more feasible than in 2.
Something ive noticed about how i play, is that in the past i could play a ck2 run for centuries without really expanding for rp and not get bored at all (actually the only reason i really stopped playing some saves was new patch releases making my old game corrupted). Nowadays i struggle to do that, while i can certainly do that on ck3 with travelling, tournaments, knights, retinues, the royal court (which i use as rp rather than if its optimal) tho i do agree we need alot of things still for ck3 like republics, more empire mechanics (if its different per culture or per specific title even better), even more options for custom religion creation (let me name my own gods or set different holy sites), etc. that being said, im having a blast with ck3 as it is and really dont think paradox needs to rush the dlc's (so they dont repeat mechanics like in persia). But again, just my own personal opinion.
You’re not wrong. I think this next chapter will do a lot to alleviate many of the communities major gripes. At least the dev diary seems to point in that direction.
Good video, looking at CK3 there are at least 10 regions that need a region pack to make the game as a whole feel like the large map reflects a real diversity of play styles. At a minimum we would need packs for Britain, France, HRE/Germany, Arabia, and the Byzantines. I'd like to see packs for Eastern Europe, North West Asia/Steppe, India, North and West Africa, and Italy. At present we're seeing one region pack a year and we're around half way through the CK2 development cycle. At this rate we probably aren't going to wind up getting all the major regions covered. I get that role playing is the focus of CK3 but the samey-ness of almost every region feels like empty. I like CK3 but I'm holding off buying any more DLC until I see the whole thing fleshed out a bit more.
I think major expansions will start adding flavour content alongside some major reworks, and when that happens then we'll end up speeding up the progress a lot. Just think about how much development was put into royal court and t&t, and just imagine if half the time was spent on some flavour alongside it. My prediction is that Byzantines itself will be in or even be its own major expansion, because I don't think a single flavour pack could really do the region justice.
I am probably one of the few that actually liked Sunset invasions. It’s like the final boss… my games always tend to become awfully stale at the point of invasion, and it always were a breath of fresh air. I’ve really given CK3 a shot. I don’t think it offers as much as CK2… however, I’ve done everything I wanted in CK2 with thousands of hours… been there done that.
As for the start dates paradox hates them. They orrigonally stated that there would be only 1 start date for ck3 but ultimately couldnt leave out the norse systems nor couod they include them in what they consider the true start date of 1066. They note that most players only play in either the 1066 or earliest possible start date in ck2 according to in house data depending on if they want to start with all the features or build up a dominant power early. So they reduced it to two for this game and one for all their other new ones. I strongly disagree with this mindset but that os what the devs said in the lead up to release
Idk. I think having a focus on perhaps late middle age events with a start date wouldn’t be a bad thing. Just because someone says they won’t focus on it at release doesn’t mean they can’t change their mind. I see people commenting about start dates all the time and personally I think it adds more variety even if it is obviously challenging to do on a scale of CK3s map.
@@Soul_Tomato I agree on all your points. sadly though PDX says otherwise. though your also right that things can change. they even said that if they release an EU5 that there will be only one start date. it does seem to be policy going forward... but It sure is one I hope will change.
When it comes to wich start date is ideal I would say CK2 got it right. Starting too early in the middle ages just ends with massive Byzantines that will blob hard and starting too late misses out on Charlemagne who is very interesting. It must happen after the Islamic conquests imo
It is kinda crazy that ck3 just doesn't have ship building or trade. It was such an important part of the era historically and it removes quite huge parts of gameplay. Even just playing on an island nation is entirely different when enemy armies can't just float across the water at you with no pre planning or opportunity to intervene
I just want deeper mechanical flavour in CK3. I don't enjoy how simple so many things feel. It's currently SO easy to snowball, and then the game just becomes boring. More land always equals more power and more money, and eventually you just become a worldwide superpower 50 years after the game starts. I'd love if they introduced in-depth economical gameplay where you are encouraged to manage trade, supplies, and population - and putting of administrative strain on large kingdoms and empires. These things are currently far too abstracted imo. I also think they need to provide more ways to play. Currently, no matter *how* you play, you're always going to be centralizing your realm more and more and trying to increase development in your capital. The only difference between tribal realms and feudal realms is that tribal realms can raid and are also restricted to just a single holding per county. You're just trying to expand more and more in different ways, and you're encouraged to reform your culture and religion to help your expansion. It's not fun after the 5th playthrough. Struggles help with this, but honestly I feel they don't do enough, and once you finish them there's basically nothing left to do. I've always played Crusader Kings for the roleplay, but there's so much simplification and abstraction of the systems and economy in CK3 that really hampers my ability to roleplay. Everything in the game basically just comes down to buffs and debuffs. Your choices in events rarely have any meaningful consequences, and every character you play basically always wind up with a good number in every skill. They honestly ruined the building system from CK2, because there's just objectively better buildings than others and you also basically have no fucking choices anyways (you had so many options in the vanilla CK2 building system of how you wanted to develop your holdings, even though every holding of each type had the same choices). Alliances are WAY too easy to get and if you manage to get an alliance with a powerful kingdom then you basically never have to worry about anything ever again. There's no mechanical incentive to stay as a Duke or Count (except to avoid the annoying Royal Court mechanics - seriously, I was so excited for that DLC to expand the flavour events of managing your realm, but 99% of the events in that DLC are just people complaining to you because your court priest farted too loud or your son is spending too much time painting). The entire game revolves around making numbers go bigger and picking the right choices so your numbers get bigger faster (with a low chance of getting a bad event which makes your numbers get bigger slower). Seriously, why is the only consequence of causing a diplomatic incident between two diplomats because you offer such shitty lodgings, that you get a fucking number and opinion debuff??? I love CK3, but seriously there are so many problems with the game that make me mad anytime I play it. Everything is a mile wide but an inch deep. Playing an Indian ruler is the same as playing a Norse ruler. The only differences between religions are what buffs and debuffs they grant you, and occasionally what cassus belli's you have. There's no interesting objectives to chase except forming kingdoms or taking a piss easy decision to make your whole dynasty even stronger than it already was. You never get to play as a bad ruler or a mediocre ruler (seriously, I don't think I've ever gotten a bad congenital trait except for when I've done inbreeding - and even then I only ever got shit like clubfooted). The game needs depth desperately.
I don't really think that would be as interesting as people think, though it does touch on what I think are some core issues of the game. The reason I don't think it would be that interesting is that the game is very heavily built around vassal management, in order for that to be relevant there has to be a minimum-tier unplayable vassal, otherwise vassal management isn't in the game and a great deal of things to do vanish. At the same time, there are performance issues to take into account as a cost to be weighed against any possible gain. Of course, this is a problem because the way Barons work doesn't make demesne management interesting or personable. Let's turn this CK2 vs CK3 comparison into a CK vs CK2 comparison: in the original CK you had no Barons. Instead, every County had 4 estates (peasantry, burghers, clergy, minor nobility), with each having an opinion of you and a share of influence in the county. This then determined what troops you got, and what kinds of realm laws would get you effective taxes, whilst buildings provided buffs or the like. Conceptually, it was very interesting, except for the fact that it was absolute garbage in implementation. In CK2 they made the economy entirely about having buildings, but introduced Barons as holders of sub-county fiefs to keep the people-management in the game whilst making it more personable. However, Barons work mechanically like any other vassal, just less so (for performance reasons, from what I understand). They don't really serve a special role as liaisons or stand-ins for the local population of the county or anything, and become just another holder of some stuff that you get a very basic tax+levy rent from. The core of your economy will then always be some buildings that you just personally have with some extra rent coming in from all vassals, baron or not. Thus the basic building blocks of economy and army-building have, paradoxically, become less "people-focused" since the original CK, even as the rest of the game becomes moreso, and demesne management and playing as a smaller lord with fewer vassals is therefore less interesting.
@@nathanharvey8570 I don't think that's necessarily true of CK2's economy. Certainly when you are a small ruler a good amount of your income is from your own personal holdings, but larger realms have to manage vassals to make money. Due to demense and vassal limits you have to make larger vassals that, with proper play, end up being responsible for large portions of your income. This means that keeping those individual characters happy ends up being an important part of your gameplay because otherwise, they won't pay you. That's not to say it's a particularly complicated system. The player that knows to create these kinds of vassals will largely be able to manage their opinions pretty easily, but it's still character-based. I can't speak to how this works in CK3, but I've gotten the impression that playing tall is extraordinarily powerful in that game so it might well be the case in that game that the holdings of vassals are largely irrelevant.
One think I like more about CK3 over CK2, despite the latter being overall better in many sense, is that new dlcs do not seem to break game rules as much as new updates for CK2. I remember when, I think with Charlemagne they added defensive pacts and initialy it was impossible to switch off until the ability to choose your own game rule. Same for secret societies, in my playthrough I started before this dlc came out it was crazy how whole states could suddenly become Islamic of Hinduistic out of nowhere. Also multpile changes on how mongols worked (and how broken they were when the defensive pacts were in place). Also also final rework on byzantines turned them basically unplayable, from like semi-feudal system which in my opinion worked well because of titles and faction-specific events but alllowed for cool dynasty playthrough within the empire to this strange imperial type and governance.
Also I have personal grudge against Rajas of india, because that update changed map and game version, and no one told teenage me that you can switch back to earliest version in steam settings so I lost ability to continue my best playthrough ever :P And yep changes in map and how they could affect especially ironman saves was.. eh. Tho no the empire names in CK3 are awful. As a Pole idk why everyone hated the idea of wendish empire as a name, it was such a cool name, actually reference to ancient people living around those area and was used multiple times in german and latin documents from early medieval period on those areas, so... I liked it, it was climactic. Unlike Baltic and west slavia :D
I think they’ve learned how to integrate DLC in a way that isn’t catastrophic. That probably comes from using CK2 as their playground and CK3 as a more serious experience so to soeak
Ck3 is inferior because ck2 has great mods. Great works and metropolis should be included too. And empire mechanic was great in ck2 I think they should give this option to cultures which has byzantine tradition. Which will make it unique Also rajas of india was underwhelming. Strugle mechanic can be great for this region. Pratiharas, Palas and rashtrakutas fought each other and each controlled Kannauj at different times. And gaznavid and ghurid invasions were also missing in ck2. Cultures religion etc also need some work. China with different government will be great too.
The ghaznavid invasion was a thing in ck2. They were grouped with "turkic invaders" in the game rules. Though interestingly enough if a non arab/turkish country rules persia the ghaznavids will follow that culture
@@Soul_Tomatodoes ck3 already have big overhaul mod like HIP/ck2+ in ck2? Those are the game changer for me back then, its like once I tried HIP, i couldn't go back to play vanilla ck2 ever again kekw
@@namelessone9941 tbh when people say mods I personally don't think of the ones that mess with the base game very much. When I mod I usually want it to be a dramatic change -- but there are a few small mods I use in base game quite a bit. Still, there are a plethora of overhaul mods for Ck3, many of which I've discussed on the channel.
Using "mods" makes an argument almost always invalid as its pretty obvious that most people dont care about mods in games. It doesnt really matter how great those mods are
my favorite feature of CK2, bloodlines is still not implemented. Loved using the matrilineal marriage system to stack multiple bloodlines on my heirs, hoping this gets put in development somewhere down the line
I know it's not exactly the the same but I feel like dynasty legacies kind of fill the same purpose. Also stacking those with a bloodline seems like it could get OP very easily
@@jackjohnson1255 It takes insane amount of time to stack bloodlines and there are already much quicker ways for you to get OP easily, paradox games aren't exactly known for their single player balance.
Well look at how massive the jump from Ck1 to Ck2 is, then look at Ck2 to Ck3. Ck3 seems to be a stripped down step back like Bethesda did on Elder Scrolls. Not for me, but others will of course feel different.
There is one thing that sounds small on paper that makes me massively prefer ck3 to the point ck2 is almost unplayable now. I can’t stand fabricating claims is percentage chance based with the added factor your councilor can get bribed into not bothering to even do it and you have no way of finding out; while in ck3 you can have your bishop fabricate a claim and you know exactly how long it’ll take and it’s guaranteed. The other big things for me is culture in ck3 and the coat of arms/ nation flag designer in ck3 are really amazing. If it wasn’t for the fabricating claims thing I would go back and replay ck2 a lot more then I do rn, because ck2 does have stuff I think it does better then ck3; like events/flavor, the map looks way better with its papery feel, not having the BS royal court, playable republics, bloodlines, societies, and crusades being really fun.
Interesting that you like the old map more. Personally I think the visuals and UI in CK2 are eye gore in comparison to CK3 at this point. But I did like some of the icons more. The fabricating issue is an interesting one for sure.
The only thing with Paradox games and a lot of other 4x games out there, I do not understand why the sequels don't start with all or most of the features of the predecessor with tweaks to make them better. There's a lot of things in CK2 that just are better, that feel better, that have actually built upon the game and genre whereas CK3 is starting out with bare bones all over again. As an example, republics not being in CK3 at release is insane. Tours and Tournaments feels like the only thing that has built upon the game - but it happened 2-3 years too late. Another thing is the shattered world/randomised world stuff. We needed that in CK3's release with a randomised terrain or map builder along with it. And honestly, the feeling of CK2 just feels better - the map feels and looks better IMO.
This is why I never want to see an eu5. The thing that makes paradox games special is the sheer development time and updates their games get. But the downside is it takes years to get to a point that it truly feels full like ck2 or eu4. So yeah, I'll be sticking to ck2 myself until ck3 feels full, and I can do the out of the box crazy stuff I used to be able to do in ck2.
To get on par with CK2 it'll take at least 400 dollars extra for old mechanics, often half baked ones We see this with Hoi4 We see this with Victoria 3 And we can see this in CK3
would love a start date at the fall of the western roman empire. barbarian invasions, establishmente of the feudal system, roman flavor and a date that has never been explored by paradox. researching technology would be a problem and no one would ever play until the end date but I feel like it would be a very interesting option to have.
The problem with ck3 is the sheer snap om of notifications. The dlc add interesting features, but they boil down to, ah crap royal court time click click and closing pop ups
I think that the reason we don't have a 769 start date yet is simply because the current innovations system isn't balanced around it. If a 769 start date existed, by the time next age can even be unlocked all cultures on the map will have every innovation available completed, maybe except those with super low development. If that expansion comes, it'll probably include a reworked innovation system to allow for that. Personally, the one thing I'm looking forward to the most in CK3 are interactions with China- in whatever form they come.
Seeing as one of the start dates already has two different Chinese emperors as on map playable characters, and the height map goes basically to Beijing already. I'm surprised how cagey they've been with just putting china on the map.
@@starhalv2427 in 1066 there's both Emperor Yizong of Western Xia dynasty in the Hexi Corridor, and Emperor Daozong of Great Liao in Mongolia though whose real capital was Beijing.
@@ItIsYouAreNotYour "Modders will fix it" Paradox has truly fallen to the lows of Brthesda It's corporate cocksuckers defending every last action are judt as bad as well
Regarding the earlier start dates, I recall reading somewhere that the reason they don't include them is because the historical record gets murky enough further back that for a lot of the Charlemagne start in II they were essentially making things up for large parts of the map, plus borders for counties would shift and that would require an engine-level rework to do given how baked into the game static county and barony borders are
They don't want to add more start dates because apparently it became a nightmare to add stuff later in expansions, as they'd have to work on each subsequent starting date when adding new things into the game. As for DLC, I think the first 3 years of CK3 DLC are kind of abysmal, nothing about it truly interests me, and I only bought chapter 1 because It was on sale and I like hybrid cultures. I haven't played many games in vanilla ck3 to truly experience it all. Just finished a Harold Godwinson -> Anglo-saxon Crusader state of Valencia playthrough. I would love to see more grand scale DLC in the future. Stuff covering East Slavs, west slavs, and souther slavs. Expansion on Byzantium like what CK2 added, an expansion covering the caliphates, and expansion for the Mongols and China. Along with minor changes for other cultures like the balts, caucasians, finno urgrics, and various migrating peoples. What I want to see most is a map expansion into China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and South East asia. I think this exists in data mining as a blank map, but china apparently exists (?).
I miss the silk road, trade posts, and playing as a merchant the most. Overall, though, CK3 is by Paradox's best current product. I've spent too many hours on this game.
The one thing that i strongly dislike in CK3 is the thin notification system. Compared to CK2 i have a lot less awareness of the situation around me. In my last game my king executed his wife. I only found out a year later. It would have been nice to be informed. For roleplay purposes.
I was from the team who really....REALLY hated ck3 but after legacy of persia and fate of iberia and the struggle system i feel that i can say that it is a very good game now i love the struggle system and i feel that we only need one more struggle and that would be good and enough from this feature and that is something that ck2 completely lacked and i although love the realism in ck3 as ck2 moved to mythology in it's last years but i would love to see some supernatural things like the immorality events and i although like the bloodlines and i hope to get them back
Your crashes are probably ram related. CK3 uses eye watering amounts of ram to run smoothly. I had frequent crashes on my steam deck when running ck3. I increased the swap file size and it fixed them.
i think the new approach of paradox is actually smart. start with a game thats easy to understand and get into to attract players and then slowly build complexity on that
One of the problems of CK3 is that it feels kinda like CK2 but with less in it. So why even bother to play it, when I can play CK2 with more in it and even better roleplay options. The small fact like baronies have a very limited amount of building slots which limits what you can build instead of the CK2 way of you can build everything but you have to choose what you want first. Then the fact that you character has a leveling system where you have to progress in certain areas to be able to do basic stuff that you were able to in CK2 and the only thing that was limiting the use of those things were your skills. CK3 feels like it forces your characters into one direction while in CK2 (if you have the skills) it's your choice. And the genetics in CK3 are all wrong and too broken.
The biggest reason for me is the quality of life improvements and the UI. CK2 has and always will look like medieval excel. I won’t deny genetics are easily broken in CK3 but no one is forcing you to do that. I have personally never made a “perfect pure blood” character because meta gaming is boring to me. Plus having to focus on just one thing k think was the devs attempt at preventing snow balling which, if so, they should have probably edited how wars work.
Ck3 is a dynasty grand strategy while ck2 was eu4 with characters. In ck3, i get to PLAY a character while in ck2, sure i can play as someone, but ultimately, i only do limited things while waiting for the truce to finish with extra flavors. This is why monk and mystics was LOVED despite the initial criticism it got by the historically accurate Players. That's why i prefer ck3. Because it's its own breath, not a mix and match eu4 with extra flavors.
Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely we'll ever get earlier start dates, as paradox says they care more about historical accuracy, and that's more difficult the further back you go, especially with ck3's more detailed map. My wishlist is a republic, theocracy, and nomad government types that are fun and atleast somewhat accurate, a Byzantine rework and the ability to start the game with a custom religion and culture. There's hundreds of nit-picks I could make but those are the big things I want
Actually, I was reading Dev responses on the paradox forum and it didn't seem out of the question for earlier start dates. I think a Charlemagne date is quite likely actually. But I think one of the things that will largely prevent them from doing anything earlier is the prophet Muhammad. If you haven't noticed, Muhammed is already represented in the game by a big orb rather than a character model, because it's considered disrespectful to Muslims to represent him. And for some Muslims this has been a big enough deal to kill for (see Charlie Hebdo attacks). Also, while they care about historical accuracy a fair amount, there already is a lot of characters that are more like fictional conglomerates of real life characters. They'd probably just do the same if they went earlier.
Surprised you left out the fact that in CK3 Christian and Muslim rulers can no longer send missionaries to convert foreign pagan rulers, despite specifically mentioning it in your description of the features of The Old Gods.
The main problem of CK3 aren't the missing DLCs and content, are the mechanics which weren't improved from CK2 or they even got worse. CK2 wasn't perfect, but had a lot of good things. They should have took those and improve, not building from scratch an almost different product. About the specific list of the features, I just don't want to put myself to it and explain all of them, they are present and it's enough to play both games to understand it.
Important note, they did say why they have done the DLC;s they have done. They focused on story and rp more than mechanics because they wanted to beef up their coding team before dipping into any mechanically heavy DLC. A process for which should be done about now as per their original plan they shared on the PDX forums (Unless stuff went wrong). For 769, the said that they scrapped it because sources for rulers are more legendary than factual and they are trying to move more towards factual sources.
The reason you can't choose more start dates in CK3, insofar as I understood it, is that Paradox noticed that starting dates other than the basic bookmarks were hardly ever chosen by players. However it did cost them a lot of time and resources to research what changes each year brought in terms of characters, so they decided to scrap the feature. While I'm saddened by it I can hardly blame them.
You know what feature I think needs to come back? Societies Not as they were, gloriously broken, but how they filled you with something to do CONSTANTLY Little bit of peace time? Here is a quest! You want to interact with someone more? Make them your apprentice! Wow that guy in your Society insulted you in a meeting? Rivalry! People always complain about stat creep, but that was never an issue for me personally because I also got so much CONTENT out of it, I could play entirely with like three pieces of territory and be happy with Societies for most of that gameplay while I wait for plots and claims to start coming up. Societies just added so much character, and it seems like a vaguely easy system, make a new menu, and then just change what all the words say, like they did with CK2, at that point its just writing instead of code and asset work, which would still be a LOT of work, but the majority of it would be writing and that would make players have MORE things to do
Shallow, can sum up a few of the latest editions of Paradox games in my opinion. Taking some of the nuance and strategy out of the game. Like a few of the most liked comments, levy assembly in CK2 vs CK3, start dates, missing history from basically the entire eastern part of the map. HOI4 going with a South America DLC when Germany, Japan and the whole lend lease/war tension system needs a rework. If you played HOI3 or previous titles you know they removed a few very specific features ie command structure being oversimplified. I love Paradox games. But really want them to return to their historical routes while pushing the genre forward. Dont sacrifice all the good you have done in previous titles just to get a new version of an old, but loved, title. Prime Example being City Skylines. Keep up the great work Soul!!!
My hopes for future DLC >More cosmetics >West African focus >East African focus >British focus >India focus >North and Central European focus >Byzantine/Mediterranean focus >Republics >Massive Religion focus (I hate that you can't reform druidism basically, but you can Hellenism!)
I can get behind the massive religion focus. I want to reform the Ancient Egypt culture and religion like you can do with the Roman Empire, but I can't do that neither in vanilla nor in a modded version of CK3 (all Egypt mods are outdated).
@@Pandauron well that would be a bit silly to include in the vanilla game because Ancient Egypt culture and religion is some 2000+ years before the start of the game, it was already ancient history in 867. Might as well give us the option to restore Babylon while they're at it. The fall of the western roman empire is only 400 years before the start date and the the eastern half still exists so there is something to restore, hellenism still exists, the idea of the Roman Empire still exists in the hearts and mind of the people of the Byzantine Empire, In fact to them there was no Roman Empire to restore because they already were the Roman Empire.
I think that any company that releases a sequel to a game they put out a lot of dlc in the previous installment, you have to include all of the DLC in the vanilla sequel. Get more creative to make new DLC. It is insulting if you paid all that money for CK2 or Skylines 1 and then they release a sequel that doesn't do everything the last one did. Could you imagine if you bought an Ultra 24 Samsung phone and they gave you a phone that had none of the updates that were in the 23? They instead said. Don't worry, we will sell you those updates later if we think they were good, we don't care what you think.
Interesting, just started playing the 2nd game and grabbed the monthly sub to use all the add ons. Having a blast! I really hope some of the features we love get added on by default some things should be offered as a standard.
@@Soul_Tomato It would be amazing if it was just most of ck2's mechanics and content along with some of the good shit from ck3 and ck3's UI and interface or at least the map
Definitely a lot of what ck2 has that ck3 doesnt have is because of design choices. Governments and religions don't really play differently, as in trying to make flexible systems you reduce distinctiveness. I really liked the old system of unique duchy level buildings that you made choices on, along with the old republic house system, but the new systems are very much against things like that. Knowing paradox they could always make duplicate systems to add fake complexity (looking at you EU4), but the lack of distinction between playing leads me to play ck3 for a week every new dlc, then drop it. This most recent dlc i didn't play until my end of year mega campaign.
The problem is they released ck3 like their playerbase hadn't already played ck2 to death... no innovation, too few improvements. Playing it felt 'been there done that' and 'that's just barebones ck2'. Same with eu5 btw. There is no way within the first 5-10 years of release it'll be superior to eu4, it's impossible. Even if eu5 becomes the most solid base game in pdx history it will be called boring, empty and unfinished by eu4 veterans, while new players will be the ones to defend it. And I bet pdx is aware of that so they keep investing in accessibility - through simplifying existing mechanics - and mainstream appeal (through focus on meme-able content) over new deep and innovative game mechanics. Knowing they can't improve on what they already made in a meaningful way and instead just sell to new people while basically scamming anyone who already owns the older games
Comparing the first 3 yrs of CK2 and CK3 is not the correct one to be done imo, because then we are trying to compare equals instead of a sequel. The fair comparison would be of final CK2 to current day Ck3.
I agree about early starts (that's why I've stuck with CK2), I wish we had one for the fall of the WRE. I think the regional pagan faiths make realms feel unique. Big Christian or Muslim blobs play very samey. I'd love to see Celtic and Egyptian faiths added, or the Germanic faith split into West/East/North variants.
Ck2 may be free to play but those dlc are overpriced , they should make them like 5 or 3 euro not 15 because its a old game and it already has a new game in the series
@@Soul_Tomato Definitely, if you use the Invictus mod which adds more flavor, bugfixes and AI improvements (along with the latest 2.0.4 open beta Paradox released this year). Imperator focuses a bit more on strategy and pop management and a bit less on characters. And who doesn't like at least one of Sparta, Rome, Carthage or Macedon? :)
I still can't get a hold of ck3. It's too complicated. When I first started to play ck2, it took some time but I figured it all out. Ck3 just confuses and overwhelms me each time I honestly try to start a new game
It does add it to the game (as well as secret faiths which was nice). Religion in CK3 in general is fairly simplified so I’m not sure what sort of fleshing out you’d mean.
@@Soul_Tomato I haven't played CK3, I am simply replying to the video, where you said they "sort of" implemented Zoroastrianism in that DLC. It just strikes me that a DLC with that title would want to do justice to that faith.
Priority List: 1-Republics (maybe economy overhaul alongside this) 2-More start dates 3-Cardinall College 4- african and indian flavour. To me if we got this id be sattisfied
Republics never really worked in ck2 though. They were constantly broken often leading to every succesion being a game over. You could start as a electing house and become the ruler of a republic. But if you ever lost an election you could never go back to that family land. It just ended the game. I hated ck2 republics and that is the stated reason by the devs that they arent in here. They dont work. They never worked and they wont put them back in until they can consistently make them work.
@@Soul_Tomato we may. they claim to be working on it... but they claimed that before release to. we shall see. If they actually work I will be estatic. I would LOVE a venice game. but.... lets just say I don't want the mess that CK2's republics were anywhere near here. I genuinely played without that DLC after buying it just to make it cause less problems.
The differnce I find is that I enjoyed the events from ck2 more than CK3. In ck2, if you decide to not go to war, random intresting events popped up. They didnt tell you out comes and thats how it roled. CK3 on the other hand, even with all this new stuff, feels less random. You aint gonna send a trade deligate off, or build a garden, have a random lord from across the land come and see you, ot even go and trade with the other side of the map. No chinese suprise, or empire events. No random meeting with a witch or meeting of a pope. Ck3 as a vassel is very boring. Ck2 as a vassel is great. CK3 is also easy to become op. Yet empires melt like butter. Ow and my biggest issue is murder, its every fucking wear!
Really loved roleplaying in CK2 as godly warrior then getting old and still having high duel skill searching Byzantine empire for best fighters to fight and either die fighting or return with prestige!
@@Soul_Tomato or having collection of enemies in your room Embalmed to prevent any plots with Murder Bloodline, even remember how the kid still had -100 of every vasal for his parent 'ways'.
My biggest issue with CK3 is that it doesnt feel as alive to me as CK2. Youd think with the more life-like models and all the nice art and updated graphics, the world that you shape would seem a little more "full" but it really doesnt. Maybe its just because Ive already put 1k hours into CK2 but from the very first moment of playing CK3 I felt it was lacking in events and I still do. Your characters in CK2 also had legitimate character development because of the dozens to hundreds of (different!) events thrown at you during a characters lifetime, while CK3 characters that are brave and ambitious when they are young will still be brave and ambitious at 80, which, for a game supposedly about roleplaying as a medieval ruler, just doesnt make any sense. Plus, the events you do get through the court or travel are repetitive and annoying. I still remember some of my CK2 rulers and their exploits because their lifes were more... lifelike. On top of that, of course, is the criticism you already have in this video. Theres no navy (despite that being one of the most important areas of warfare, trade and human life in general) and areas like Byzantium or the HRE are poorly flashed out. Theres a lot to be done here in my opinion. Sure, we have a good basis but its time Paradox actually fills it with something interesting.
I genuinly don't understand why this game is so positively viewed while Vicky III is reviled. I can't stand the direction CKIII has gone in with its focus on being a bad RPG over being a strategy game.
As someone who has played both, Vicky 3 just felt too surface level complicated. Outside of the economy and war it was basically a 5 speed simulator, which I didn’t enjoy
The positions they take for not adding any additional start dates make no sense. I can see not wanting to take the time to add the option to play literally any date, but at least make it the major 5 from ck2, or as much as the additional dates of interest like the alexiad, or latin empire periods. The game is stale with only 2 start dates
I really love ck3 I think it’s in a good spot that could be better. Echoing what most people said already, I agree an expansion to republics and imperial mechanics would be a welcomed one. But one thing I don’t see many people talk about is the rework to diseases and the Black Death reapers due dlc did for ck2. Man, I can’t be the only one who thinks of the plague when I think medieval history. I really think it would fit in so nicely with the new travel mechanics introduced in ck3. I don’t even need the whole hospital mechanic I just want diseases to be on the map and actually spread and not just have characters randomly fall ill. It’s sad bc I have a feeling I’m in the minority here which means the chances of that getting added into ck3 are even more slim.
Invested a lot of time in both and although i still orefer ck2 in a lot of ways ck3 is still ver enjoyable and I have a lot of hope for the game. Features like the new title and character customization are great and Im hopeful for the games future :)
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Temporary (feat. Skylar Grey) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaK9Wi5ho0o/mqdefault.jpg)
Minor correction from the statement around 9:30
You could play as any date between late 1066 and sometime in 1337. Between 769 and 1066 you could only pick the 769 start date, 867 start date, and later on 936 start date.
Thanks for the correction. Gonna pin this.
One thing I prefer about ck2 over ck3 is the raising of troops.
In ck2, troops are raised in the provinces of the vassel they come from, and must move to consolidate.
In ck3, troops are all raised wherever you want.
In the former system, it takes time for large empires to mobilise, so there was an opportunity for smaller powers to come in with a smaller, more quickly gathered force and wipe out some troops before withdrawing and hoping you got enough.
Now the most you can do is maybe siege down a county or two before you have to face the full might of the empire you face.
I would have prefered if troops in ck2 had to gather from their individual provinces to make it a lengthier process, but as it is the process is better than in ck3.
Yes, it's just ridiculous that if let's say I'm raiding Sardinia the full army of the holy roman empire shows up from thin air before I can even finish a siege of 15 days
It still takes time to muster an army, but now you can't snipe all the little armies moving to the capital.
For large empires it will take weeks to muster the entire army, just like in CK2...
That was tedius bs. Especially the ships. I prefer the streamline. That AI has always been ridiculous to exploit. Just because it appears more complex, doesn't mean it is or fun. If it's realism you want, this game needs to be totally redone. You can also still do it that way, along with quick mods forcing it on the computer.
@@ItIsYouAreNotYour There isn't that much tedium if you properly set up rally points beforehand, because the troops will automatically move and unify into one army at that location. Ships are also important as they change tactical flexibility. The way to get more flexibility is to build more ships, but then you are slowing your scaling as you cannot build money or troop buildings. Depending on your situation ships may be more important, though this is largely the case in Scandinavia and the British Isles.
I did multiplayer, and regrouping armies was an important strategic consideration. One way to ameliorate it was to, when you got large enough, give king tier vassals a province far from their land so you can raise their troops there. Fairly gamey though, and while not banned it was deemed a poor show. This solution is also quite late on.
Troops in CK3 still have to travel trom the area they come from to the muster point. The time it takes to raise an army in CK3 is still dependent on the size of the territory the troops are drawn from. To measure this, set a few different muster points and measure the time it takes when you click the 'raise local troops' button vs the time it takes when you click the 'raise all' button. The difference is that in CK3, mustering troops don't visibly travel over the map anymore, so you don't get a few 100 armies of a few 100 soldiers each grinding performance to a halt every time a large empire goes to war.
I get the feeling that the first 2 chapters were mostly planned from release, hence why the DLC content covered isnt really responsive to what the community has desperately wanted for a while now, like empire content, republic content and theocracy content. I wouldnt be surprised if we saw the major expansion for chapter 3 be byzantine, HRE and generally empire related, and one or two flavour packs for republics and/or theocracy. Altho the catholic church and its influences ought to be a major expansion too.
I think you’re probably right. I bet they had an early roadmap and they didn’t want to deviate.
@@Soul_TomatoIt's strange to me because Paradox was always on the more entrepreneurial side both in terms of game design and business model innovation. It would be weird to hear how suddenly inflexible they got if that was the case, any pre-production and planning already done could have been saved for later after all.
They need to release a nomadic expansion pack ASAP. I'm tired of seeing Byzantium expanding into the steppes because they're treated as tribal land
@@pl-AEtheRR Let's not forget that there was the whole Corona panic when it was being developed as well. It might have had an effect on their decision making, I don't know.
@@Soul_Tomato they confirmed this is the case, they wanted to do these and then build off it. Legacy of Persia was the first one made with player data
My personal feelings are that CK2 felt like an imperfect simulation of that period. While CK3 feels too zany somehow. Especially when it comes to morality, so much is played for laughs, like a funny skit.
Idk if I’d completely agree but I can see where you’re coming from. But you can literally become immortal and do a bunch of other ridiculous stuff in CK2. I think CK3 just has terribly written court events - like the bad smelling courtier among others - as well as some other awkward events. CK2 was definitely not lacking in its fantasy so idk if that’s a good comparison.
Ck2 was often ridiculous
These events were mainly locked behind insanity or possession. Or extremely rare
CK3 and it's claymation characters playing the God damn Sims. Turning everything into an overly dramatic joke
Feels like it's appealing even harder to the hecking redditorinoos and youtube content over what made CK2 great
I still miss having a navy, something about turning a province into my royal dock yard was satisfying.
I’m sad they don’t want to bring them back
I always disliked that there was no naval combat in ck2, and ck3 reduced it further.
Now there is no opportunity for one region having not enough ships and having to decide between going on a long trip overland or ferrying troops piecemeal while risking them being wiped out by your enemy. There is no longer the risk of being caught by a stronger enemy and being unable to flee because of too few boats.
Now it is just pay the fee and get on the boats.
It is like there is a medieval ferrying service anywhere in the world that you just have to pay a flat fee to access.
@@whitehawk4099Now that you point it out, it sounds like the Guild service from Dune universe 🤔
@@Nicolas-Sunthe mutated prescient ship captains hold a monopoly on sailing 😮
to be honest, i dont know what modern Paradox has against developing a fleshed-out naval system. Both CK3 and Vic3 might as well have no bodies of water whatsoever because of how poorly treated crossing bodies of water is, when historically it's always been a pain for any nation, big or small, to move troops across seas. Even more egregious when you consider during that same era of history CK3 is in that the Mongols, the greatest army in the world, was thwarted from fully utilizing the extent of its military power in conquering Japan because of bad weather.
Meanwhile in-game, every coastline in the known world apparently has boat merchants you can just borrow transports from for a monthly fee. Even in Northern Russia, you can somehow transfer 50k troops by sea, they're all just cozy in their boats suffering minimal attrition and barely a landing penalty. Atleast in CK2 you needed to have a fleet to transfer, AND the longer you spend time in the seas the more fucked your army gets from attrition and scurvy. 10+ years after those game mechanics and somehow things got worse, especially considering CK2 already had mediocre naval gameplay. Vic 3 might even have it worse, yeah you can build ships for the most simple naval combat but once war fronts are established overseas somehow your 200k troops can magically move to the front untouched. When in reality GPs like the UK and the USA were the most prosperous nations of that era for the main reason that they can keep warfare as far away from their core land as possible. The naval invasion kinda makes up for it a bit but it's too simple and at the same time opaque.
I still prefer CK2 personally from a content & performance perspective.
I do prefer the ability to travel in CK3, but overall CK2 is more enjoyable, and runs better.
I miss having Republics, and I would love to see MORE government types, and an expansion to all of them.
Nomadic/Adventurer, Tribal, Merchant Republic, Clerical.
Yea, but one has had 6 more years of development, so I think it's fair that one lacks as much content than the other. Like, in terms of quality compared to the previous respective title, CK3 is probably the best Paradox release we've had for a long time.
Totally fine to prefer it.
Agreed. It’s launch wasn’t a total disaster like a recent title (cough, Victoria, cough)
Honestly, on medium graphics CK3 runs so much better than CK2 ever did for me. Strange.
@@pl-AEtheRR totally agree ck3 runs way better than ck2 for me...
I think a big dlc CK3 could do that isnt something CK2 had is an expansion around playing as unlanded characters theres tons of interesting things that could be done and the roleplay and simulation mechanics they could add would be great but i also really want to see republics and a trade overhaul first
Yea, I agree, there's already a ton that you can do in the game that's not related to land, so adding some more stuff to make them playable wouldn't be so difficult. Imagine being able to join tournaments and trying to convince your liege to grant you land. It'd also be cool because if you get deposed, you continue to play as your character and then garner support for your claim.
I would love that honestly. Would be great for role play
@@Soul_TomatoAmazing idea, making the RPG focus go off the roofs
I agree. So annoying that a family / dynasty you have built up since 1066 hits game over because you're playing your 3rd born daughter who is fighting factions and dethroned. You're unlanded so it's game over. But you could go on to remarry and fight your claim, or you play on as your unlanded son who has claim to throne.
Heck, even playing a baron could be interesting. I never understood why they finally put baronies on the map in CK3 but didn't make them playable. Playing as unlanded sounds like a cool concept too.
From what I've heard from interviews with PDX CK3's development is deliberately slower paced. CK2's fast development lead to a messy codebase which is what eventually put an end to further development, they're trying to avoid the same pitfall by taking it slower this time.
That makes sense. I recall the DLC would break the game constantly which doesn’t seem to happen as much these days.
Thats genuinely nice to hear
i heard the aim is have good stable quarterly results for stocks. it is not related to the game itself.
Or is it a better way to milk a product dry?
That's 100% bullshit given the ease at which they were able to update CK2 and the vast gulf in how easy it is to mod CK2 vs the mess that modding CK3 is. They saw that CK2 was getting big on reddit and with gimmicky youtube channels, and that it was an old game and they decided to make a new one with all of the wacky bits that get karma and likes at the forefront and stopped developing CK2 because they didn't need it to make money anymore.
one thing I miss alot is like guilds from ck2, where you could become a berserker via the guild and get quests to do in order to get better standing or increase your standing or rank in them
I want to see those return so bad
Especially the warrior guilds as a pagan, those were the best
yes! and also like witch guilds where you could attempt magic and stuff@@talios6824
Secret societies were too op
As CK3 leans more into roleplay, I would love something like "happyness" as an opposite to stress.
Also something like "dreams" could be added: Like a goal you can put on your dynasty (for example converting smth, forming smth, getting rich af).
I’d love this. That would be a nice balance to the stress system
So like the Ambitions in CK2, but interacting with the Stress system
Paradox could incorporate dreams with prophecies and current stress mechanics, like the ones characters received by hermits and mystics in travel.
Influenced, hunted or even possessed by the ambiguous words told be seers sounds very medieval to me.
I also support a 476 start date, i'm of the opinion that the design philosophy of Ck3 actually works perfectly within the dark ages, way more than within the high middle ages themselves (to be clear this is in no way shape or form a negative view towards ck3 of my part) so a fall of rome or at least a post Heraclius bookmark is not unreasonable.
It would be a dream come true. Thankfully fallen eagle covers this period well but I’d like an official expansion
It will never happen, because the lack of an image of Muhammed would be glaring for people, and cause controversy.
Even in CK3 you might note that they blocked out his face.
That would actually be an amazing subject for a different game itself! It would be reductive and anti-historical to put it in this game. I'd rather have a game which lets you play one of the various barbarian factions like Visigoths, Lombards, Vandals, Huns ecc, as well as the Eastern Roman Empire and the Arabs still mostly set in the middle east.
Some barbarian tribes desired and partially succeeded at integrating in the Roman world and establish a cultural and political continuum with it, like Visigoths and Lombards. Other like the Huns were raiders and didn't give two sh1ts.
Many campaigns you could do, such as Justinian's Renovatio Imperii, not to mention religion with the Schism and so on. Or either being on the attacking or defending side in the Arab conquest of north Africa and Spain and partially Italy. Ecc ecc.
Tons of material, never put in a game as far as I know
One thing they have done wrong with start dates is making hellenism dead when it was still around into the 800s at the latest in a public form, surviving into the early middle ages as a more rural and private religion due to years of segregation and second class citizenship.
It would be cool if counties in the more mountainous regions in the greek and bulgarian balkans and anatolia could have hellenism as their culture at the 800s start date to simulate this real history even if it isnt super well known where exactly it had survived so long.
@@ericfisher1360well if you start in the 400s, unless they put in an event, islam would never be created in this alternative history and we would continue with middle eastern polytheism, hellenist groups, and various abrahamics such as jews, mandaens, gnostic groups, and those who had followed abraham (what morphed into modern islam)
If you played frkm the 470s on, without a triggering event, there would not be islam, and you would play in a still largely polythiest, and zoroastrian middle east. Making for a very different world where islam had not dethroned multiple then major religions.
It also means they dont have to figure out how to depict mohamed without someone getting upset about it. If you go back through the lineages of caliphs/sayyids in ck3 for example, he is depicted simply by his symbol and has no form at all.
"Why don't they have more start dates" they made it very clear during development that they will not be adding any more start dates aside from the two existing ones. Main reason they cite is that constantly needing to update the histories for every start date whenever a new feature is added takes an immense amount of time which is fair.
Yeah I didn't realize this before but it makes sense
It’s a shame they didn’t include the iron century start date. I always thought it was the best mix between the total chaos of the 800s and the established realms by 1066
I know but I still wish they'd add a 762 start date. 867 is a bit too chaotic for my liking and 1066 far too stable. 762 was a nice balance imo.
@@bmobmo6438769
They are paid a salary to do it. Also if they genuinely lack the passion to develop the game then they should just make it free and public domain lol.
Now, I only heard about this through a Reddit thread and haven’t confirmed it myself, so take the following with a grain of salt. But supposedly in a previous forum post, one of the CK3 devs said that merchant republics are low priority currently, which is absolutely heart-breaking to hear. As you said in the video, they’re a crucial component of the medieval fabric, and just not being able to play as them or interact with them meaningfully makes the world feel that much more shallow.
A couple people have said this now so I'm begrudgingly inclined to believe them...
Honestly the main thing I really want is a actual proper wars and battles because these stuff really annoys me when there is no war council or such
I’ll be honest, I can’t play CK3 without mods. There is so much content which was not added to CK3 that already existed in CK2 and it feels shallow without it. However, I do not feel that was entirely because of the 9+ years of development for CK2. I played CK2 for years, hundreds of hours, before I eventually tipped my toes into mods. I felt like the base CK3 experience was bland to begin with.
My biggest problem with CK3 is the personality system. Personality traits are way too static, and they usually don't change within a lifetime. Once a character aquired a personality trait, it will stick until their death. Something that is not realistic and barely the case IRL. In reality, we learn from experience and change over time. Certain life-changing events can have a huge impact on your personality. Also, you only have three or so personalities and four or more is really, really rare.
In CK2, the personality traits were sometimes perhaps too fluid, but overall much more enjoyable. It felt like living a life as a dfferent person whereas in CK3 it feels like whatever happens you stay the same.
By the way, if anyone knows a mod that somehow changes the way personality works, feel free to tell me.
I generally pefer a lot of the quality of life with CK2 especially the fabrication of claims. I missing the College of Cardinals, the Imperial mechanics of Byzantines, Merchant republics, the Reaper Due mechanics, China and events maybe it is me I will like they missing alot of things to do, especially with the events.
If I had to choose two it would be Merchant Republics and Byzantine Imperial mechanics.
I have a STRONG feeling our next expansion pertains to Imperial or Empire mechanics
@Soul_Tomato That would be nice.
I hope to see merchant republics afterwards or a bit later if they do something with the tribals with the horse Lords but it was bit of a mess from memory in CK2.
Even if I think there are some structural problems in Ck3 gameplay which may be harder to fix or just require more effort (too easy to climb the whole ladder in a lifetime, once you're emperor nothing to do, tribal only feels like a step before becoming feudal rather than having its own dignity, REPUBLICS etc.) I think Paradox could HUGELY improve the feeling of the game by just writing more events. I imagine it would cost them very little to write more events which are original, different for every culture, and maybe some of them could also be a little strange (i miss that from ck2). At the moment I could be playing in India and I would get the same event I would get as an Asatru in Norway. It's not super bad, but surely gets boring fast.
They don't want to make the game too fun at any point so you will buy new DLCs with the hope of getting more content and having more fun playing it. It is kind of like the diabolical freemium model where you don't want your players having too much fun with what they already have and instead want them to focus on more content (including cosmetic). I don't think more events will make the game less of what it is right now: a visual novel with semi-randomly generated story bits.
@@ua2894 The DLC issues is the thing i decided never buy another paradox dlc, ill buy the game, but once it gets to expensive ill just pirate it. Fuck their greedy asses, I like them games but not their business model
writing events is fairly easy iirc, the hard part really would be research
I think they did polling and it showed not many people played republics, horse lords or the later start dates so they haven’t prioritised those as an inclusion. I think if they are moving away from just adding stuff from ck3 we might not expect these to make a comeback in the way they were in ck2.
Tragic truly
I smell pre-determined BS.
Just take a look at how many people played AGOT and most if not all of them enjoyed having an option to play Essos (republic).
I mean you have like every week on r/AGOT people asking about Essos.
Now considering it's not only those people asking for republics, I really don't see only minority of us wanting that.
I agree we need more start dates, but the devs have said no Charlemagne DLC because it is just too early. They had to make up a lot of the map during that period. 867 is imo a good early start for the game even if in CK2 I loved Charlemagne start.
A DLC which added some others, like Century of Iron, the Alexiad, 1204 Latin Empire, Rise of Mongols and Late Medieval like CK2 would be wonderful though. Shorter games if you want, removal of the Byzantine powerhouse opening up Anatolia and Greece and a start with our lovely Great Khan Temujin taking over everything to spice things up.
Dang. Way to let me down easy though. Maybe we can see some later start dates.
@@Soul_Tomato
That is the dream!
To add onto what another commentor suggested, I would love a DLC where you could play as an unlanded character like that one CK2 mod.
It would improve the RP aspect tenfold if they just made that simple addition because, really, it would make sense. If you're deposed and reduced to being unlanded, you don't magically get booted out of your dynasty, it would be ridiculous. But CK is basically hardcoded to rationalize things as "if you have no land, you're irrelevant." Completely ignoring the staple mechanic of Claimants.
Just something that I didn't give much thought to until CK3 came out with a more versatile engine. If anything, it should be more feasible than in 2.
I would really love unlanded character starts. I really hope it gets added.
Why DLC tho? Why not free?
@@leventekingvevo72 its paradox
9:41 If I remember correctly you could actually only play any year between 1066 and 1337 as well as specifically 769, 867, and 936.
My bad if so!
Something ive noticed about how i play, is that in the past i could play a ck2 run for centuries without really expanding for rp and not get bored at all (actually the only reason i really stopped playing some saves was new patch releases making my old game corrupted). Nowadays i struggle to do that, while i can certainly do that on ck3 with travelling, tournaments, knights, retinues, the royal court (which i use as rp rather than if its optimal) tho i do agree we need alot of things still for ck3 like republics, more empire mechanics (if its different per culture or per specific title even better), even more options for custom religion creation (let me name my own gods or set different holy sites), etc. that being said, im having a blast with ck3 as it is and really dont think paradox needs to rush the dlc's (so they dont repeat mechanics like in persia). But again, just my own personal opinion.
You’re not wrong. I think this next chapter will do a lot to alleviate many of the communities major gripes. At least the dev diary seems to point in that direction.
Good video, looking at CK3 there are at least 10 regions that need a region pack to make the game as a whole feel like the large map reflects a real diversity of play styles.
At a minimum we would need packs for Britain, France, HRE/Germany, Arabia, and the Byzantines. I'd like to see packs for Eastern Europe, North West Asia/Steppe, India, North and West Africa, and Italy.
At present we're seeing one region pack a year and we're around half way through the CK2 development cycle. At this rate we probably aren't going to wind up getting all the major regions covered. I get that role playing is the focus of CK3 but the samey-ness of almost every region feels like empty. I like CK3 but I'm holding off buying any more DLC until I see the whole thing fleshed out a bit more.
I am very curious to hear what the new dev diary will say tomorrow regarding next year. I have a feeling they may hint some DLC.
I think major expansions will start adding flavour content alongside some major reworks, and when that happens then we'll end up speeding up the progress a lot. Just think about how much development was put into royal court and t&t, and just imagine if half the time was spent on some flavour alongside it. My prediction is that Byzantines itself will be in or even be its own major expansion, because I don't think a single flavour pack could really do the region justice.
as always when we're playing a Paradox game, the answer is mods
I am probably one of the few that actually liked Sunset invasions. It’s like the final boss… my games always tend to become awfully stale at the point of invasion, and it always were a breath of fresh air.
I’ve really given CK3 a shot. I don’t think it offers as much as CK2… however, I’ve done everything I wanted in CK2 with thousands of hours… been there done that.
As for the start dates paradox hates them. They orrigonally stated that there would be only 1 start date for ck3 but ultimately couldnt leave out the norse systems nor couod they include them in what they consider the true start date of 1066. They note that most players only play in either the 1066 or earliest possible start date in ck2 according to in house data depending on if they want to start with all the features or build up a dominant power early. So they reduced it to two for this game and one for all their other new ones. I strongly disagree with this mindset but that os what the devs said in the lead up to release
Idk. I think having a focus on perhaps late middle age events with a start date wouldn’t be a bad thing. Just because someone says they won’t focus on it at release doesn’t mean they can’t change their mind. I see people commenting about start dates all the time and personally I think it adds more variety even if it is obviously challenging to do on a scale of CK3s map.
@@Soul_Tomato I agree on all your points. sadly though PDX says otherwise. though your also right that things can change. they even said that if they release an EU5 that there will be only one start date. it does seem to be policy going forward... but It sure is one I hope will change.
When it comes to wich start date is ideal I would say CK2 got it right. Starting too early in the middle ages just ends with massive Byzantines that will blob hard and starting too late misses out on Charlemagne who is very interesting.
It must happen after the Islamic conquests imo
Unfortunately it seems the devs don’t want to add anymore start dates to CK3 per a few comments
@@Soul_Tomato Sad!
It is kinda crazy that ck3 just doesn't have ship building or trade. It was such an important part of the era historically and it removes quite huge parts of gameplay. Even just playing on an island nation is entirely different when enemy armies can't just float across the water at you with no pre planning or opportunity to intervene
I just want deeper mechanical flavour in CK3. I don't enjoy how simple so many things feel. It's currently SO easy to snowball, and then the game just becomes boring. More land always equals more power and more money, and eventually you just become a worldwide superpower 50 years after the game starts. I'd love if they introduced in-depth economical gameplay where you are encouraged to manage trade, supplies, and population - and putting of administrative strain on large kingdoms and empires. These things are currently far too abstracted imo.
I also think they need to provide more ways to play. Currently, no matter *how* you play, you're always going to be centralizing your realm more and more and trying to increase development in your capital. The only difference between tribal realms and feudal realms is that tribal realms can raid and are also restricted to just a single holding per county. You're just trying to expand more and more in different ways, and you're encouraged to reform your culture and religion to help your expansion. It's not fun after the 5th playthrough. Struggles help with this, but honestly I feel they don't do enough, and once you finish them there's basically nothing left to do.
I've always played Crusader Kings for the roleplay, but there's so much simplification and abstraction of the systems and economy in CK3 that really hampers my ability to roleplay. Everything in the game basically just comes down to buffs and debuffs. Your choices in events rarely have any meaningful consequences, and every character you play basically always wind up with a good number in every skill. They honestly ruined the building system from CK2, because there's just objectively better buildings than others and you also basically have no fucking choices anyways (you had so many options in the vanilla CK2 building system of how you wanted to develop your holdings, even though every holding of each type had the same choices). Alliances are WAY too easy to get and if you manage to get an alliance with a powerful kingdom then you basically never have to worry about anything ever again. There's no mechanical incentive to stay as a Duke or Count (except to avoid the annoying Royal Court mechanics - seriously, I was so excited for that DLC to expand the flavour events of managing your realm, but 99% of the events in that DLC are just people complaining to you because your court priest farted too loud or your son is spending too much time painting). The entire game revolves around making numbers go bigger and picking the right choices so your numbers get bigger faster (with a low chance of getting a bad event which makes your numbers get bigger slower). Seriously, why is the only consequence of causing a diplomatic incident between two diplomats because you offer such shitty lodgings, that you get a fucking number and opinion debuff???
I love CK3, but seriously there are so many problems with the game that make me mad anytime I play it. Everything is a mile wide but an inch deep. Playing an Indian ruler is the same as playing a Norse ruler. The only differences between religions are what buffs and debuffs they grant you, and occasionally what cassus belli's you have. There's no interesting objectives to chase except forming kingdoms or taking a piss easy decision to make your whole dynasty even stronger than it already was. You never get to play as a bad ruler or a mediocre ruler (seriously, I don't think I've ever gotten a bad congenital trait except for when I've done inbreeding - and even then I only ever got shit like clubfooted). The game needs depth desperately.
It would be really cool if barons are made playable, all though this WOULD require editing barony titles quite a bit I believe. Could be wrong
That would be interesting
I don't really think that would be as interesting as people think, though it does touch on what I think are some core issues of the game.
The reason I don't think it would be that interesting is that the game is very heavily built around vassal management, in order for that to be relevant there has to be a minimum-tier unplayable vassal, otherwise vassal management isn't in the game and a great deal of things to do vanish. At the same time, there are performance issues to take into account as a cost to be weighed against any possible gain.
Of course, this is a problem because the way Barons work doesn't make demesne management interesting or personable. Let's turn this CK2 vs CK3 comparison into a CK vs CK2 comparison: in the original CK you had no Barons. Instead, every County had 4 estates (peasantry, burghers, clergy, minor nobility), with each having an opinion of you and a share of influence in the county. This then determined what troops you got, and what kinds of realm laws would get you effective taxes, whilst buildings provided buffs or the like. Conceptually, it was very interesting, except for the fact that it was absolute garbage in implementation. In CK2 they made the economy entirely about having buildings, but introduced Barons as holders of sub-county fiefs to keep the people-management in the game whilst making it more personable. However, Barons work mechanically like any other vassal, just less so (for performance reasons, from what I understand). They don't really serve a special role as liaisons or stand-ins for the local population of the county or anything, and become just another holder of some stuff that you get a very basic tax+levy rent from. The core of your economy will then always be some buildings that you just personally have with some extra rent coming in from all vassals, baron or not. Thus the basic building blocks of economy and army-building have, paradoxically, become less "people-focused" since the original CK, even as the rest of the game becomes moreso, and demesne management and playing as a smaller lord with fewer vassals is therefore less interesting.
@@nathanharvey8570 I don't think that's necessarily true of CK2's economy. Certainly when you are a small ruler a good amount of your income is from your own personal holdings, but larger realms have to manage vassals to make money. Due to demense and vassal limits you have to make larger vassals that, with proper play, end up being responsible for large portions of your income. This means that keeping those individual characters happy ends up being an important part of your gameplay because otherwise, they won't pay you. That's not to say it's a particularly complicated system. The player that knows to create these kinds of vassals will largely be able to manage their opinions pretty easily, but it's still character-based. I can't speak to how this works in CK3, but I've gotten the impression that playing tall is extraordinarily powerful in that game so it might well be the case in that game that the holdings of vassals are largely irrelevant.
nah playing as count is already semi afk.
One think I like more about CK3 over CK2, despite the latter being overall better in many sense, is that new dlcs do not seem to break game rules as much as new updates for CK2. I remember when, I think with Charlemagne they added defensive pacts and initialy it was impossible to switch off until the ability to choose your own game rule. Same for secret societies, in my playthrough I started before this dlc came out it was crazy how whole states could suddenly become Islamic of Hinduistic out of nowhere. Also multpile changes on how mongols worked (and how broken they were when the defensive pacts were in place). Also also final rework on byzantines turned them basically unplayable, from like semi-feudal system which in my opinion worked well because of titles and faction-specific events but alllowed for cool dynasty playthrough within the empire to this strange imperial type and governance.
Also I have personal grudge against Rajas of india, because that update changed map and game version, and no one told teenage me that you can switch back to earliest version in steam settings so I lost ability to continue my best playthrough ever :P And yep changes in map and how they could affect especially ironman saves was.. eh. Tho no the empire names in CK3 are awful. As a Pole idk why everyone hated the idea of wendish empire as a name, it was such a cool name, actually reference to ancient people living around those area and was used multiple times in german and latin documents from early medieval period on those areas, so... I liked it, it was climactic. Unlike Baltic and west slavia :D
I think they’ve learned how to integrate DLC in a way that isn’t catastrophic. That probably comes from using CK2 as their playground and CK3 as a more serious experience so to soeak
Ck3 is inferior because ck2 has great mods. Great works and metropolis should be included too. And empire mechanic was great in ck2 I think they should give this option to cultures which has byzantine tradition. Which will make it unique
Also rajas of india was underwhelming. Strugle mechanic can be great for this region. Pratiharas, Palas and rashtrakutas fought each other and each controlled Kannauj at different times. And gaznavid and ghurid invasions were also missing in ck2. Cultures religion etc also need some work.
China with different government will be great too.
The ghaznavid invasion was a thing in ck2. They were grouped with "turkic invaders" in the game rules. Though interestingly enough if a non arab/turkish country rules persia the ghaznavids will follow that culture
Ck3 has great mods too (but you also can’t judge a game based on its mods imo) def agree on the Byzantine addition.
@@Soul_Tomatodoes ck3 already have big overhaul mod like HIP/ck2+ in ck2?
Those are the game changer for me back then, its like once I tried HIP, i couldn't go back to play vanilla ck2 ever again kekw
@@namelessone9941 tbh when people say mods I personally don't think of the ones that mess with the base game very much. When I mod I usually want it to be a dramatic change -- but there are a few small mods I use in base game quite a bit. Still, there are a plethora of overhaul mods for Ck3, many of which I've discussed on the channel.
Using "mods" makes an argument almost always invalid as its pretty obvious that most people dont care about mods in games. It doesnt really matter how great those mods are
my favorite feature of CK2, bloodlines is still not implemented. Loved using the matrilineal marriage system to stack multiple bloodlines on my heirs, hoping this gets put in development somewhere down the line
Yeah I am surprised we still don’t have those
I know it's not exactly the the same but I feel like dynasty legacies kind of fill the same purpose. Also stacking those with a bloodline seems like it could get OP very easily
@@jackjohnson1255 It takes insane amount of time to stack bloodlines and there are already much quicker ways for you to get OP easily, paradox games aren't exactly known for their single player balance.
Well look at how massive the jump from Ck1 to Ck2 is, then look at Ck2 to Ck3. Ck3 seems to be a stripped down step back like Bethesda did on Elder Scrolls. Not for me, but others will of course feel different.
There is one thing that sounds small on paper that makes me massively prefer ck3 to the point ck2 is almost unplayable now.
I can’t stand fabricating claims is percentage chance based with the added factor your councilor can get bribed into not bothering to even do it and you have no way of finding out; while in ck3 you can have your bishop fabricate a claim and you know exactly how long it’ll take and it’s guaranteed.
The other big things for me is culture in ck3 and the coat of arms/ nation flag designer in ck3 are really amazing.
If it wasn’t for the fabricating claims thing I would go back and replay ck2 a lot more then I do rn, because ck2 does have stuff I think it does better then ck3; like events/flavor, the map looks way better with its papery feel, not having the BS royal court, playable republics, bloodlines, societies, and crusades being really fun.
Interesting that you like the old map more. Personally I think the visuals and UI in CK2 are eye gore in comparison to CK3 at this point. But I did like some of the icons more. The fabricating issue is an interesting one for sure.
I prefer the old fabrication system personally. It don't like how easy it is to snowball in CK3.
You don’t need to fabricate claims in ck2 like ever lol. You have so many ways to get free claims for other lands
The only thing with Paradox games and a lot of other 4x games out there, I do not understand why the sequels don't start with all or most of the features of the predecessor with tweaks to make them better. There's a lot of things in CK2 that just are better, that feel better, that have actually built upon the game and genre whereas CK3 is starting out with bare bones all over again. As an example, republics not being in CK3 at release is insane. Tours and Tournaments feels like the only thing that has built upon the game - but it happened 2-3 years too late. Another thing is the shattered world/randomised world stuff. We needed that in CK3's release with a randomised terrain or map builder along with it.
And honestly, the feeling of CK2 just feels better - the map feels and looks better IMO.
Great video. You have a great voice and cadence for this kind of content, so thank you for being sincere in your delivery.
Thank you! Trying to improve all the time
This is why I never want to see an eu5. The thing that makes paradox games special is the sheer development time and updates their games get. But the downside is it takes years to get to a point that it truly feels full like ck2 or eu4. So yeah, I'll be sticking to ck2 myself until ck3 feels full, and I can do the out of the box crazy stuff I used to be able to do in ck2.
To get on par with CK2 it'll take at least 400 dollars extra for old mechanics, often half baked ones
We see this with Hoi4
We see this with Victoria 3
And we can see this in CK3
would love a start date at the fall of the western roman empire. barbarian invasions, establishmente of the feudal system, roman flavor and a date that has never been explored by paradox. researching technology would be a problem and no one would ever play until the end date but I feel like it would be a very interesting option to have.
Check out the Fallen Eagle mod
The problem with ck3 is the sheer snap om of notifications. The dlc add interesting features, but they boil down to, ah crap royal court time click click and closing pop ups
I really want iron century, its the perfect mid ground but wwe will never get it
Why do you say that
I think that the reason we don't have a 769 start date yet is simply because the current innovations system isn't balanced around it. If a 769 start date existed, by the time next age can even be unlocked all cultures on the map will have every innovation available completed, maybe except those with super low development. If that expansion comes, it'll probably include a reworked innovation system to allow for that.
Personally, the one thing I'm looking forward to the most in CK3 are interactions with China- in whatever form they come.
Seeing as one of the start dates already has two different Chinese emperors as on map playable characters, and the height map goes basically to Beijing already. I'm surprised how cagey they've been with just putting china on the map.
@@jessezeller-davis7699
Wait, Chinese emperors as on-map playable characters? Which ones?
@@starhalv2427
in 1066 there's both Emperor Yizong of Western Xia dynasty in the Hexi Corridor, and Emperor Daozong of Great Liao in Mongolia though whose real capital was Beijing.
This is an entirely personal wish, but I desperately crave a fully fleshed out ck3 and romance of the three kingdom mix
I never realized how much I would miss the College of Cardinals. It was just…I don’t know fun to manipulate and put your man on top.
I genuinely believe a religion rework is coming sooner or later
Honestly... something i do miss more than i thought was events like the Child of Destiny, the Devilspawn and the cults
It wasn't a DLC per se, but I would really like them to add shattered world and animal kingdoms to CK3. It was such a good addition to CK2.
You can get that type of gimmick stuff from mods. There is so much more important shit to add and focus on.
@@ItIsYouAreNotYour
"Modders will fix it"
Paradox has truly fallen to the lows of Brthesda
It's corporate cocksuckers defending every last action are judt as bad as well
All I hear is: "Paradox sells game skelletons, just to nickel and dime you for the meat."
Regarding the earlier start dates, I recall reading somewhere that the reason they don't include them is because the historical record gets murky enough further back that for a lot of the Charlemagne start in II they were essentially making things up for large parts of the map, plus borders for counties would shift and that would require an engine-level rework to do given how baked into the game static county and barony borders are
They don't want to add more start dates because apparently it became a nightmare to add stuff later in expansions, as they'd have to work on each subsequent starting date when adding new things into the game.
As for DLC, I think the first 3 years of CK3 DLC are kind of abysmal, nothing about it truly interests me, and I only bought chapter 1 because It was on sale and I like hybrid cultures. I haven't played many games in vanilla ck3 to truly experience it all. Just finished a Harold Godwinson -> Anglo-saxon Crusader state of Valencia playthrough.
I would love to see more grand scale DLC in the future. Stuff covering East Slavs, west slavs, and souther slavs. Expansion on Byzantium like what CK2 added, an expansion covering the caliphates, and expansion for the Mongols and China. Along with minor changes for other cultures like the balts, caucasians, finno urgrics, and various migrating peoples.
What I want to see most is a map expansion into China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and South East asia. I think this exists in data mining as a blank map, but china apparently exists (?).
I miss the silk road, trade posts, and playing as a merchant the most. Overall, though, CK3 is by Paradox's best current product. I've spent too many hours on this game.
The one thing that i strongly dislike in CK3 is the thin notification system.
Compared to CK2 i have a lot less awareness of the situation around me.
In my last game my king executed his wife.
I only found out a year later.
It would have been nice to be informed.
For roleplay purposes.
Honestly. That makes a lot of sense. Like a rumors system even
@@Soul_TomatoI miss screams of agony of dying people.
The only thing I like more in ck2 than ck3 is that agot has dragons in ck2 and not in ck3.
I was from the team who really....REALLY hated ck3 but after legacy of persia and fate of iberia and the struggle system i feel that i can say that it is a very good game now i love the struggle system and i feel that we only need one more struggle and that would be good and enough from this feature and that is something that ck2 completely lacked and i although love the realism in ck3 as ck2 moved to mythology in it's last years but i would love to see some supernatural things like the immorality events and i although like the bloodlines and i hope to get them back
Good to hear!
Your crashes are probably ram related. CK3 uses eye watering amounts of ram to run smoothly. I had frequent crashes on my steam deck when running ck3. I increased the swap file size and it fixed them.
@@tosspot1305
Oh the crashs had stopped now after I rest my pc
i think the new approach of paradox is actually smart. start with a game thats easy to understand and get into to attract players and then slowly build complexity on that
I just want my merchant republics 😭
Same…
One of the problems of CK3 is that it feels kinda like CK2 but with less in it. So why even bother to play it, when I can play CK2 with more in it and even better roleplay options. The small fact like baronies have a very limited amount of building slots which limits what you can build instead of the CK2 way of you can build everything but you have to choose what you want first. Then the fact that you character has a leveling system where you have to progress in certain areas to be able to do basic stuff that you were able to in CK2 and the only thing that was limiting the use of those things were your skills. CK3 feels like it forces your characters into one direction while in CK2 (if you have the skills) it's your choice. And the genetics in CK3 are all wrong and too broken.
The biggest reason for me is the quality of life improvements and the UI. CK2 has and always will look like medieval excel. I won’t deny genetics are easily broken in CK3 but no one is forcing you to do that. I have personally never made a “perfect pure blood” character because meta gaming is boring to me. Plus having to focus on just one thing k think was the devs attempt at preventing snow balling which, if so, they should have probably edited how wars work.
Ck3 is a dynasty grand strategy while ck2 was eu4 with characters. In ck3, i get to PLAY a character while in ck2, sure i can play as someone, but ultimately, i only do limited things while waiting for the truce to finish with extra flavors. This is why monk and mystics was LOVED despite the initial criticism it got by the historically accurate Players. That's why i prefer ck3. Because it's its own breath, not a mix and match eu4 with extra flavors.
Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely we'll ever get earlier start dates, as paradox says they care more about historical accuracy, and that's more difficult the further back you go, especially with ck3's more detailed map.
My wishlist is a republic, theocracy, and nomad government types that are fun and atleast somewhat accurate, a Byzantine rework and the ability to start the game with a custom religion and culture. There's hundreds of nit-picks I could make but those are the big things I want
I think all those are great asks honestly. Not stuff they haven’t done before in any case.
Actually, I was reading Dev responses on the paradox forum and it didn't seem out of the question for earlier start dates. I think a Charlemagne date is quite likely actually. But I think one of the things that will largely prevent them from doing anything earlier is the prophet Muhammad. If you haven't noticed, Muhammed is already represented in the game by a big orb rather than a character model, because it's considered disrespectful to Muslims to represent him. And for some Muslims this has been a big enough deal to kill for (see Charlie Hebdo attacks).
Also, while they care about historical accuracy a fair amount, there already is a lot of characters that are more like fictional conglomerates of real life characters. They'd probably just do the same if they went earlier.
Man, the ck3 ending screen. It hurts
Surprised you left out the fact that in CK3 Christian and Muslim rulers can no longer send missionaries to convert foreign pagan rulers, despite specifically mentioning it in your description of the features of The Old Gods.
Good catch. Completely forgot that one
The main problem of CK3 aren't the missing DLCs and content, are the mechanics which weren't improved from CK2 or they even got worse.
CK2 wasn't perfect, but had a lot of good things. They should have took those and improve, not building from scratch an almost different product.
About the specific list of the features, I just don't want to put myself to it and explain all of them, they are present and it's enough to play both games to understand it.
Important note, they did say why they have done the DLC;s they have done. They focused on story and rp more than mechanics because they wanted to beef up their coding team before dipping into any mechanically heavy DLC. A process for which should be done about now as per their original plan they shared on the PDX forums (Unless stuff went wrong).
For 769, the said that they scrapped it because sources for rulers are more legendary than factual and they are trying to move more towards factual sources.
Interesting 🤔
The only thing I want to CK3 is fleshing out of the Eurasian Steppe
The reason you can't choose more start dates in CK3, insofar as I understood it, is that Paradox noticed that starting dates other than the basic bookmarks were hardly ever chosen by players. However it did cost them a lot of time and resources to research what changes each year brought in terms of characters, so they decided to scrap the feature. While I'm saddened by it I can hardly blame them.
They do plan on adding another so apparently our complaints were heard haha
You know what feature I think needs to come back? Societies
Not as they were, gloriously broken, but how they filled you with something to do CONSTANTLY
Little bit of peace time? Here is a quest!
You want to interact with someone more? Make them your apprentice!
Wow that guy in your Society insulted you in a meeting? Rivalry!
People always complain about stat creep, but that was never an issue for me personally because I also got so much CONTENT out of it, I could play entirely with like three pieces of territory and be happy with Societies for most of that gameplay while I wait for plots and claims to start coming up.
Societies just added so much character, and it seems like a vaguely easy system, make a new menu, and then just change what all the words say, like they did with CK2, at that point its just writing instead of code and asset work, which would still be a LOT of work, but the majority of it would be writing and that would make players have MORE things to do
I agree
Shallow, can sum up a few of the latest editions of Paradox games in my opinion. Taking some of the nuance and strategy out of the game. Like a few of the most liked comments, levy assembly in CK2 vs CK3, start dates, missing history from basically the entire eastern part of the map. HOI4 going with a South America DLC when Germany, Japan and the whole lend lease/war tension system needs a rework. If you played HOI3 or previous titles you know they removed a few very specific features ie command structure being oversimplified.
I love Paradox games. But really want them to return to their historical routes while pushing the genre forward. Dont sacrifice all the good you have done in previous titles just to get a new version of an old, but loved, title. Prime Example being City Skylines.
Keep up the great work Soul!!!
My hopes for future DLC
>More cosmetics
>West African focus
>East African focus
>British focus
>India focus
>North and Central European focus
>Byzantine/Mediterranean focus
>Republics
>Massive Religion focus (I hate that you can't reform druidism basically, but you can Hellenism!)
More free non dlc pack cosmetics otherwise I agree!
I can get behind the massive religion focus. I want to reform the Ancient Egypt culture and religion like you can do with the Roman Empire, but I can't do that neither in vanilla nor in a modded version of CK3 (all Egypt mods are outdated).
@@Pandauron well that would be a bit silly to include in the vanilla game because Ancient Egypt culture and religion is some 2000+ years before the start of the game, it was already ancient history in 867. Might as well give us the option to restore Babylon while they're at it. The fall of the western roman empire is only 400 years before the start date and the the eastern half still exists so there is something to restore, hellenism still exists, the idea of the Roman Empire still exists in the hearts and mind of the people of the Byzantine Empire, In fact to them there was no Roman Empire to restore because they already were the Roman Empire.
I think that any company that releases a sequel to a game they put out a lot of dlc in the previous installment, you have to include all of the DLC in the vanilla sequel. Get more creative to make new DLC.
It is insulting if you paid all that money for CK2 or Skylines 1 and then they release a sequel that doesn't do everything the last one did.
Could you imagine if you bought an Ultra 24 Samsung phone and they gave you a phone that had none of the updates that were in the 23? They instead said. Don't worry, we will sell you those updates later if we think they were good, we don't care what you think.
Interesting, just started playing the 2nd game and grabbed the monthly sub to use all the add ons. Having a blast! I really hope some of the features we love get added on by default some things should be offered as a standard.
My main problem with Ck 2 is the map gives me headaches whereas most other strategy games don't Including all other paradox games
CK2s map and UI are terrible imo
@@Soul_Tomato It would be amazing if it was just most of ck2's mechanics and content along with some of the good shit from ck3 and ck3's UI and interface or at least the map
@@shad0wmech totally fair
ck2 is more fun to play than ck3
Definitely a lot of what ck2 has that ck3 doesnt have is because of design choices. Governments and religions don't really play differently, as in trying to make flexible systems you reduce distinctiveness. I really liked the old system of unique duchy level buildings that you made choices on, along with the old republic house system, but the new systems are very much against things like that. Knowing paradox they could always make duplicate systems to add fake complexity (looking at you EU4), but the lack of distinction between playing leads me to play ck3 for a week every new dlc, then drop it. This most recent dlc i didn't play until my end of year mega campaign.
That’s a fair assessment. I make videos for it and I play modded 90% of the time
The problem is they released ck3 like their playerbase hadn't already played ck2 to death... no innovation, too few improvements. Playing it felt 'been there done that' and 'that's just barebones ck2'.
Same with eu5 btw. There is no way within the first 5-10 years of release it'll be superior to eu4, it's impossible. Even if eu5 becomes the most solid base game in pdx history it will be called boring, empty and unfinished by eu4 veterans, while new players will be the ones to defend it.
And I bet pdx is aware of that so they keep investing in accessibility - through simplifying existing mechanics - and mainstream appeal (through focus on meme-able content) over new deep and innovative game mechanics. Knowing they can't improve on what they already made in a meaningful way and instead just sell to new people while basically scamming anyone who already owns the older games
Comparing the first 3 yrs of CK2 and CK3 is not the correct one to be done imo, because then we are trying to compare equals instead of a sequel.
The fair comparison would be of final CK2 to current day Ck3.
It was in comparison of the DLC that released in the same timeframe between the two - which I explained in the video.
I still find it very strange how much Sunset Invasion bothered people. It was a dlc, you didn't have to buy it. I would like more a-historical stuff
I think because it took the space of what could have been something else less ahistorical? I’m not sure.
I dont really care about playing as a republic but i really miss trade and great works
Hopefully we get something like that considering the depth of trade in Vicky 3
I agree about early starts (that's why I've stuck with CK2), I wish we had one for the fall of the WRE. I think the regional pagan faiths make realms feel unique. Big Christian or Muslim blobs play very samey. I'd love to see Celtic and Egyptian faiths added, or the Germanic faith split into West/East/North variants.
Ck2 may be free to play but those dlc are overpriced , they should make them like 5 or 3 euro not 15 because its a old game and it already has a new game in the series
Paradox dlc price is kinda crazy ngl
@@Soul_Tomato Yea but they also basiclly make the best games in the genre
Maaaaan i miss ck2 musics. the ost are just better.
Interesting, I haven't played CK2. How about comparing Imperator: Rome to CK3? People do megacampaigns like that.
Ive actually not played Imperator. Is it worth it?
@@Soul_Tomato Definitely, if you use the Invictus mod which adds more flavor, bugfixes and AI improvements (along with the latest 2.0.4 open beta Paradox released this year).
Imperator focuses a bit more on strategy and pop management and a bit less on characters. And who doesn't like at least one of Sparta, Rome, Carthage or Macedon? :)
@@xk1390persia and Egypt fans :p
personally i liked the intrigue and guild features the most and miss them so much!
CK2 soundtrack combined with songs of Byzantium reached the PEAK EARSTHETICS of any paradox game.
I mean that’s true
Negative
That's the last good Victoria game
Vicky 2 is peak sountrack
@@commisaryarreck3974 No your taste is just inferior.
I am starting to think Glitterhoof might fancy me.
Make a move
I went to Glitterhoof’s chamber and gave her a good tumble!
I still can't get a hold of ck3. It's too complicated. When I first started to play ck2, it took some time but I figured it all out. Ck3 just confuses and overwhelms me each time I honestly try to start a new game
Small indie company Paradox just couldn't make a complete game from start, they need 10 more years with overpriced dlcs
How does an expansion pack CALLED "Legacy of Persia" not properly flesh out Zoroastrianism and its branches???
It does add it to the game (as well as secret faiths which was nice). Religion in CK3 in general is fairly simplified so I’m not sure what sort of fleshing out you’d mean.
@@Soul_Tomato I haven't played CK3, I am simply replying to the video, where you said they "sort of" implemented Zoroastrianism in that DLC. It just strikes me that a DLC with that title would want to do justice to that faith.
That’s fair enough
Priority List:
1-Republics (maybe economy overhaul alongside this)
2-More start dates
3-Cardinall College
4- african and indian flavour.
To me if we got this id be sattisfied
Same
Republics never really worked in ck2 though. They were constantly broken often leading to every succesion being a game over. You could start as a electing house and become the ruler of a republic. But if you ever lost an election you could never go back to that family land. It just ended the game. I hated ck2 republics and that is the stated reason by the devs that they arent in here. They dont work. They never worked and they wont put them back in until they can consistently make them work.
I think we may seem them yet
@@Soul_Tomato we may. they claim to be working on it... but they claimed that before release to. we shall see. If they actually work I will be estatic. I would LOVE a venice game. but.... lets just say I don't want the mess that CK2's republics were anywhere near here. I genuinely played without that DLC after buying it just to make it cause less problems.
Paradox just hasnt been making new start dates for games anymore i dont have hope anymore will be added
Apparently they talked about it in development that they didn’t want to do too many so I’d say this is correct
The differnce I find is that I enjoyed the events from ck2 more than CK3. In ck2, if you decide to not go to war, random intresting events popped up. They didnt tell you out comes and thats how it roled. CK3 on the other hand, even with all this new stuff, feels less random. You aint gonna send a trade deligate off, or build a garden, have a random lord from across the land come and see you, ot even go and trade with the other side of the map. No chinese suprise, or empire events. No random meeting with a witch or meeting of a pope.
Ck3 as a vassel is very boring. Ck2 as a vassel is great.
CK3 is also easy to become op. Yet empires melt like butter. Ow and my biggest issue is murder, its every fucking wear!
Really loved roleplaying in CK2 as godly warrior then getting old and still having high duel skill searching Byzantine empire for best fighters to fight and either die fighting or return with prestige!
Or being able to eat people for their skills
@@Soul_Tomato or having collection of enemies in your room Embalmed to prevent any plots with Murder Bloodline, even remember how the kid still had -100 of every vasal for his parent 'ways'.
My biggest issue with CK3 is that it doesnt feel as alive to me as CK2. Youd think with the more life-like models and all the nice art and updated graphics, the world that you shape would seem a little more "full" but it really doesnt. Maybe its just because Ive already put 1k hours into CK2 but from the very first moment of playing CK3 I felt it was lacking in events and I still do. Your characters in CK2 also had legitimate character development because of the dozens to hundreds of (different!) events thrown at you during a characters lifetime, while CK3 characters that are brave and ambitious when they are young will still be brave and ambitious at 80, which, for a game supposedly about roleplaying as a medieval ruler, just doesnt make any sense. Plus, the events you do get through the court or travel are repetitive and annoying. I still remember some of my CK2 rulers and their exploits because their lifes were more... lifelike. On top of that, of course, is the criticism you already have in this video. Theres no navy (despite that being one of the most important areas of warfare, trade and human life in general) and areas like Byzantium or the HRE are poorly flashed out. Theres a lot to be done here in my opinion. Sure, we have a good basis but its time Paradox actually fills it with something interesting.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think the next year will be very telling for CK3s longevity
@@Soul_Tomato Indeed. Also, this was a good video. Thanks for making it
I genuinly don't understand why this game is so positively viewed while Vicky III is reviled. I can't stand the direction CKIII has gone in with its focus on being a bad RPG over being a strategy game.
As someone who has played both, Vicky 3 just felt too surface level complicated. Outside of the economy and war it was basically a 5 speed simulator, which I didn’t enjoy
The positions they take for not adding any additional start dates make no sense. I can see not wanting to take the time to add the option to play literally any date, but at least make it the major 5 from ck2, or as much as the additional dates of interest like the alexiad, or latin empire periods. The game is stale with only 2 start dates
It bothers me as well
Republics should totally come back, I'm sure they are planning on doing that at some point!
Worst thing in ck3 is the UI looks like windows excel. No art into something so important, no immersion
That's honestly not something I'd thought of but this is true, huh.
I really love ck3 I think it’s in a good spot that could be better. Echoing what most people said already, I agree an expansion to republics and imperial mechanics would be a welcomed one. But one thing I don’t see many people talk about is the rework to diseases and the Black Death reapers due dlc did for ck2. Man, I can’t be the only one who thinks of the plague when I think medieval history. I really think it would fit in so nicely with the new travel mechanics introduced in ck3. I don’t even need the whole hospital mechanic I just want diseases to be on the map and actually spread and not just have characters randomly fall ill. It’s sad bc I have a feeling I’m in the minority here which means the chances of that getting added into ck3 are even more slim.
I miss the charlemagne start, republics and horselords the most
We got legacy of rome coming to ck3 as roads to power
Invested a lot of time in both and although i still orefer ck2 in a lot of ways ck3 is still ver enjoyable and I have a lot of hope for the game. Features like the new title and character customization are great and Im hopeful for the games future :)
When the republic DLC comes out for CK3 I hope they turn Iceland into a republic, which it was in 1066
That would be sweet. I’d play so tall