|
Honestly with Paradox at this point you have to know what you're buying. CK3 will be great and it will also be unrecognizable two years later due to the massive amount of content added by DLC and complete game mechanics being ripped out and replaced in patches. That is just the deal and you're either okay with it or not.
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
If I didn't like the base game, I'd never buy any of the expansions for it, and expansions have tended to add quite a lot of content that just... layers onto what's already there. I've never really felt "ripped off" by Paradox, even though I've probably blown more money on their games than I have other companies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 06:56
|
|
|
CK2 was not a good game on release, I’m amazed people didn’t immediately contradict that. It was pretty much objectively worse than CK1 for a long time, be it from bugs ruining entire saves via save corruption or to virtual soft locks from half implemented special features hemming the player in or just plain no agency if you had the audacity to start as a count. Or the unspeakable triviality that was the late game because assassination plots were literally just pay coins to kill man. Reverting to a lot of these launch rules now turns off achievements because they were so loving bad. It took a long time to stop spymasters from tattling on themselves and give people actual mechanics to engage with before CK2 started to truly resemble the masterpiece we have today. While I’m sure a lot of things can be backburnered or simply left out (stuff like the invasions, be they historical or not, are simply not a big part of an average game), it still feels like a big “citation needed” to claim that it’ll be anything but a good foundation for further growth on release.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
Serephina posted:That was eight years ago, and since CK2 has had over $300* of DLC, plus whatever the base game was. Almost all advice in this thread assumes extensive DLC ownership (council, pope, etc). After CK2, Paradox Dev studio has released Stellaris, which was been a flaming mess for every version of the game yet also has $250 worth of DLC to a $40 game. And yet it's not one team working on all of these games, there are several different teams. Stellaris is a mess (that I still enjoy), but assuming the same of CK3 is premature. That said, I've learned my lesson (from other games before, hello Sword of the Stars 2), only pre-order or day-one-buy if you're really, 100% sure that you will enjoy the game. Saying you will wait a week or even a month on reviews of a game you're unsure about is a very reasonable position to take. But outright declaring "CK3 will be an open beta, and not worth buying until it has a few expansions" is taking things too far into the other direction. Thread regulars will let you know relatively soon whether CK3 is a mess like Stellaris or Imperator, but it's not at all unlikely that the game will be very worth playing at release. Coolguye posted:CK2 was not a good game on release, I’m amazed people didn’t immediately contradict that. It was pretty much objectively worse than CK1 for a long time, be it from bugs ruining entire saves via save corruption or to virtual soft locks from half implemented special features hemming the player in or just plain no agency if you had the audacity to start as a count. Or the unspeakable triviality that was the late game because assassination plots were literally just pay coins to kill man. Reverting to a lot of these launch rules now turns off achievements because they were so loving bad. I admit, I didn't buy CK2 at release, sorry about that. But I did get it before Sword of Islam came out, due to friends recommending it to me, and I enjoyed it a lot. It my first Paradox grand strategy game, so maybed it just being so different from everything else I've played to that point colors my impression. And I obviously can't compare it to CK1. But the game did not need half a dozen DLC to be very good.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And yet it's not one team working on all of these games, there are several different teams. Stellaris is a mess (that I still enjoy), but assuming the same of CK3 is premature. You misunderstand me, I am making no claims that CK3 will be a lemon (quite the opposite, as everyone else has already noted, they just need to copy&paste ck2). My Stellaris comparison was that, regardless of the quality or merits of the game, come hell or high water, "There Will Be DLC" (imagine that in a dramatic booming voice). Holding off on the purchase until bundles are available is nothing short of prudence.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
We all have dozens of great games we got for a spare change or even for free. It's not like we're starved for entertainment. The only reason for preorder or for buying on release is if you want to talk about the game on day 1. It often makes sense with multiplayer or story games but you know that Paradox game will still be discussed years later. If it isn't you shouldn't have bought it anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
Serephina posted:You misunderstand me, I am making no claims that CK3 will be a lemon (quite the opposite, as everyone else has already noted, they just need to copy&paste ck2). My Stellaris comparison was that, regardless of the quality or merits of the game, come hell or high water, "There Will Be DLC" (imagine that in a dramatic booming voice). Holding off on the purchase until bundles are available is nothing short of prudence. Ah, I see. Yes, that makes some sense. Though you will of course miss out on some fun if CK3 is good on release or shortly after, by waiting for a later bundle. It does save money though, you're correct about that. That said, while I've waited for sales in Stellaris (and Total Warhammer) for DLC that didn't interest me, I've bought every single gameplay DLC for CK2, and have never regretted it. If CK2 is one of your favorite games, then it's probably worthwhile to get it on release, even if it costs more money. But I found seeing the changes in CK2 over time was part of the fun. And it helped me with not overwhelming me with features, because I've always had some time to digest each new DLC's additions to the game.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
I jumped on the CK2 train too late and found it overwhelming. I loved playing Stellaris with everyone and posting about it. I’m buying CK3 early on and shitposting on it, dlc be damned
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:CK2 was not a good game on release, I’m amazed people didn’t immediately contradict that. It was pretty much objectively worse than CK1 for a long time, be it from bugs ruining entire saves via save corruption or to virtual soft locks from half implemented special features hemming the player in or just plain no agency if you had the audacity to start as a count. Or the unspeakable triviality that was the late game because assassination plots were literally just pay coins to kill man. Reverting to a lot of these launch rules now turns off achievements because they were so loving bad. Sorry, I've been playing CK2 since Day 1 and it was always good. It was arguably the best game launch Paradox ever had up to that point. It used to be that you were crazy for buying a Paradox game on release because it would be buggy and almost unplayable. CK2 changed that. It was in need of some tweaks here and there, sure but the fun was always there and the systems were solid. And reviews at the time agreed: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crusader-kings-ii/critic-reviews And worse than CK1? That's crazy. I never even had a thought of playing CK1 again after 2 was out.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
All I hope is that CK3 has more stable multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
I love paradox games. I just don’t like paying crazy amounts for DLCs. CK2 is awesome. Hopefully CK3 will be as well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Sorry, I've been playing CK2 since Day 1 and it was always good. It was arguably the best game launch Paradox ever had up to that point. It used to be that you were crazy for buying a Paradox game on release because it would be buggy and almost unplayable. CK2 changed that. Yeah, I preordered CK2 and played it a ton for a month or so and I really don't recognize what that guy is on about. It was well received at the time in the paradox thread as the first Paradox game that actually was fun at launch without waiting for a few patches. It wasn't perfect obviously but I don't think anyone went back to CK1 after it was released.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Sorry, I've been playing CK2 since Day 1 and it was always good. It was arguably the best game launch Paradox ever had up to that point. It used to be that you were crazy for buying a Paradox game on release because it would be buggy and almost unplayable. CK2 changed that. Maybe, but Imperator: Rome brought it straight back again.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Buying early...helped me with not overwhelming me with features, because I've always had some time to digest each new DLC's additions to the game. This is the key thing. Before I got into CK2 (which was around the merchants DLC) I had put hundreds of hours into EU3. I bought EU4 and all the DLC that was on the humble bundle a few months ago and it is overwhelming with all the options available.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Sorry, I've been playing CK2 since Day 1 and it was always good. It was arguably the best game launch Paradox ever had up to that point. It used to be that you were crazy for buying a Paradox game on release because it would be buggy and almost unplayable. CK2 changed that. Victoria II has similar ballpark reviews (including, most notably, ZERO negative ones) and it's a mostly dysfunctional pile of garbage to this day: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/victoria-ii/critic-reviews. The loving game can't even run on many systems due to constant crashing. The expectation surrounding grand strategy games is flatly different than most when it comes to launch. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we're pretty willing to look at what's there as a foundation to build on rather than demanding a complete product. CK1 was better, flat out, at the core task of providing good challenges to conquer with careful planning and good stories to tell afterward. I don't disagree that it was the best launch Paradox had had up to that point. I don't disagree that it was a lot better than we had been expecting considering poo poo like CK1's release. But CK2 was not doing its job that well on release and you need only look at the changelogs to see that. It was certainly doing that job worse than CK1, which had also had multiple years to mature at that point. Two months after CK2's release, if you wanted to have a kickass story about your dynasty coming up from ashes to be the biggest badasses on the block or a paint europe story, picking up CK2 was a great way to disappoint yourself when it turned out you were waiting a jillion years for an appropriate opportunity to show up. Now even if you're a Catholic Count, the world's ultimate cucks, you can figure out a plan that will make every life worth living. That wasn't true on release. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as hype about CK3 as anyone and I'm definitely buying it on release day because of the altered expectations and norms surrounding grand strategy games. But 'better game' is not an expectation I think anyone should be carrying too closely. Coolguye fucked around with this message at 17:57 on May 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:Victoria II has similar ballpark reviews (including, most notably, ZERO negative ones) and it's a mostly dysfunctional pile of garbage to this day: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/victoria-ii/critic-reviews. The loving game can't even run on many systems due to constant crashing. It really wasn't just the reviews, this thread's predecessors at the time said pretty much the same thing (I was one of the people saying it). CK2 was the very first Paradox launch that didn't have Paradox Launch Syndrome, and for a lot of people it immediately eclipsed CK1 (which had been my favourite PDS game up to that point). Now obviously there's room to be skeptical about any Paradox launch (though honestly I didn't think Stellaris was that bad at launch either, and I can't speak to Imperator or HOI4) and it's not some sort of act of treason to Not Preorder (though I too will be taking the first step on the road to disappointment). I think that the launch version of the game is barely recognizable in what we have today - there have been a ton of changes and additions, mostly for the better, and like you say the changelogs speak to that. But the core experience was solid and fun and giving people stories to tell ITT even when they were hacking apart the time-limited demo so they could play 400 years in one sitting because you weren't allowed to save. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:Two months after CK2's release, if you wanted to have a kickass story about your dynasty coming up from ashes to be the biggest badasses on the block or a paint europe story, picking up CK2 was a great way to disappoint yourself when it turned out you were waiting a jillion years for an appropriate opportunity to show up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Zane posted:not really. it was fine. the basic mechanics for this have never really changed. assassination changed completely. factions and plots changed completely. hell, even your ability to change your character changed completely with ambitions and focuses. the basic mechanics even in a no-dlc game have changed entirely to get things done. Dallan Invictus posted:It really wasn't just the reviews, this thread's predecessors at the time said pretty much the same thing (I was one of the people saying it). CK2 was the very first Paradox launch that didn't have Paradox Launch Syndrome, and for a lot of people it immediately eclipsed CK1 (which had been my favourite PDS game up to that point). which is what i'm talking about. bugs are a part of this, but the things you are able to do are a huge part of this as well. you could literally do more things in CK1 than you could in CK2 on release. with 8 years of CK2 dev i find it difficult to believe that there won't be more things you can do in CK2 than CK3 on release.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:assassination changed completely. factions and plots changed completely. hell, even your ability to change your character changed completely with ambitions and focuses. the basic mechanics even in a no-dlc game have changed entirely to get things done. Zane fucked around with this message at 02:22 on May 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
It may pale in comparison to the game it is today, but CK2 was absolutely amazing at launch and i never played CK1 after it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Yeah the only modern paradox game I've been disappointed in at release was Imperator. I can't really judge Stellaris just because I'm not the biggest fan of that kind of game, the symmetrical starts turned me off immensely when part of what I find fun in Paradox games is that I'm not stepping onto a blank canvas.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:with 8 years of CK2 dev i find it difficult to believe that there won't be more things you can do in CK2 than CK3 on release. I’m sure that’s true, but I also don’t know that that makes 3 a worse game. After 8 years I think pruning the bad and tightening up the good aspects of the game could be just what’s needed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
I have managed to create Bosnia! Caveat: Somehow I did this after inheriting and then losing the Byzantine Empire, so that was a hell of a trip.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
What could you actually do in CK1 that you couldn't on release of CK2? I can't remember anything I thought was missing from 1 when 2 released.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:What could you actually do in CK1 that you couldn't on release of CK2? I can't remember anything I thought was missing from 1 when 2 released. Play a horn every time you clicked on a vitally important menu. Seriously though, wasn't there some managing of noble, clerical, and peasant opinions with sliders involved? I think some of that was simplified down for CK2, but I may be wrong. I played CK1 for a bit when I got interested in Paradox games, but before I had a computer that could run the Clauswitz Engine, and made the switch to CK2 around Legacy of Rome. I think Sunset Invasion was the first DLC that came out after I got it. CK2 was basically a straight upgrade, and I remember the thread at the time gushing about how it was Paradox's first game to be good on release, without even needing a day one patch.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:I have managed to create Bosnia! Careful not to post this in the Paradox Forum.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:I have managed to create Bosnia!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
catlord posted:Play a horn every time you clicked on a vitally important menu. Seriously though, wasn't there some managing of noble, clerical, and peasant opinions with sliders involved? I think some of that was simplified down for CK2, but I may be wrong. I played CK1 for a bit when I got interested in Paradox games, but before I had a computer that could run the Clauswitz Engine, and made the switch to CK2 around Legacy of Rome. I think Sunset Invasion was the first DLC that came out after I got it. CK2 was basically a straight upgrade, and I remember the thread at the time gushing about how it was Paradox's first game to be good on release, without even needing a day one patch. You had interesting province management system with every province having every building painted on a special screen. It wasn't quite Heroes of Might & Magic 3 but it was still nice. Not just visuals, CK2 has very boring buildings. Only walls and keep have some combined effects, everything else is just a straightforward bonus to one specific stat. EU3 and EU:Rome tried to do the same thing in 3D with every town being represented.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
lurksion posted:The requirements on for the challenge was annoying. Have to be independent and not already have a king or emperor title. Basically need to wait out for a major revolt. I didn't notice that bit when I started it, so it seemed fairly easy to me. When I noticed it was when I inherited the loving Byzantine Empire out of nowhere. I wasn't even voting for myself!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
CK3 better have the coffin dance theme mod as a feature
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Is there a CK3 thread yet? Having just got in to CK2 and enjoyed it, I'm considering getting CK3 at/near launch but I'm also wary of jumping down the Paradox DLC rabbit hole. I'll probably end up waiting it out to see where Goonpinion shakes out on the launch version.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:You had interesting province management system with every province having every building painted on a special screen. It wasn't quite Heroes of Might & Magic 3 but it was still nice. Not just visuals, CK2 has very boring buildings. Only walls and keep have some combined effects, everything else is just a straightforward bonus to one specific stat. Ah, I vaguely remember that screen. I don't remember interacting with it much, for whatever reason. Probably never having the money, I seem to remember upgrading stuff in CK1 was wildly expensive, or maybe I was just ridiculously poor. What was neat about the buildings?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Is there a CK3 thread yet? Yeah, I am in the same boat as you. I need to finish obsessing over this game - and the ~$100 I have poured into DLC suddenly... - before moving on. Anyway, question time: Playing a half demesne/half vassal limit 769 game. Seems like it really tightens things up, except Vikings and Islam are just crushing. 990 now and half the map is Caliphate. Wondering if the longterm inevitability is a green map. Anyway, that's all irrelevant. I have grinded my way into possessing 80% of Brittania, with 50%+1 of every Kingdom. However, before I formed the Kingdom of England, I formed the custom kingdom of Essex with 3 duchies in the area. Upon formation of England, I destroyed my Essex title. Fast forward 100 years to now, where I technically have enough land to form Britannia. When I click on my kingdom on the map, the area that was my original kingdom of Essex isn't highlighted as counting toward the total. So even though I control ~85% of Britannia, because 9 counties aren't counting as ghosts of my past Essex kingdom, I will have to pretty much clean sweep my way across the British Isles to qualify for forming the empire. It isn't really any issue as my major battles have already been fought and won - all I have left now is cleaning up the scraps. But it does lead to my question: Is this a bug, or am I missing some arcane detail? As I have said, I have long destroyed my Essex kingdom title, and I don't think it lasted long enough for it to become de jure part of a separate kingdom. But maybe it did and I just have to wait out the clock till it gets reabsorbed? Does this make sense?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:Yeah, I am in the same boat as you. I need to finish obsessing over this game - and the ~$100 I have poured into DLC suddenly... - before moving on. I don't think it's a bug, more that the way de jure drift works is a bit arcane. The custom kingdom would have pulled the duchies into its own de jure territory when you formed it (this happens immediately, rather than waiting the typical 100 years), and also not been part of a de jure empire since it was brand new. The thing is that when you destroy them, it doesn't put them back, and if you own multiple kingdom titles the game often just won't de jure drift territory you own into any of them (I've never been clear on why it does this - I think it's to avoid conflict about which title it should drift into and avoid everything getting absorbed into your primary title). So I'm guessing at some point after forming the Kingdom of England, you also formed another kingdom like Wales and that just kind of halted the drift process entirely, leaving the duchies as a weird island of being de jure part of a kingdom that no longer exists which is itself not de jure part of any empire. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 02:26 on May 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
Yep that’s exactly it. Formed Scotland shortly after to get claims to fight the Norse with without using Holy Wars to try to avoid pulling in 15,000 tributaries. Well explained! Thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Follow-up: Are you aware of any game mechanic consequences of this little niche problem I should be aware of, aside from what I’m currently experiencing?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
Not that I can think of - de jure is mostly used for generating CBs or creating titles, and for the latter case only for pre-existing de jure titles. The special decision related titles (like forming the empire of Outremer) tend to be based on pre-designated regional requirements and those never change. De jure can also affect vassal relations (they will get mad at you if you hold titles that are de jure under them, and if they are not your de jure subjects they are more likely to join independence factions) but it's not a major issue.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Zane posted:the mechanics are more elaborated. but the basic functionality is not very much changed. assassinations have always been a somewhat chancy option for ~60-150++ gold. i have a lot of good memories of early count level gameplay. i don't think of any of the expansions as having actually altered the basic mechanical fundamentals of gameplay. what most immediately comes to mind is perhaps the faction system. but that isn't even expansion content. assassinations don't use money inherently anymore, they require personal relationships and have a very intricate plot relationship that they didn't when it was click button to kill man. relationships are, like, the actual thing CK2 is about, even more so than countries and kings. on launch if you had a 0 martial ruler you were stuck with that and the -50% levy penalty for literally their whole life. life focuses came later to allow you to at least get that up to 8 and make things possible. the idea that this is 'not very much changed' is extremely  Stickarts posted:Follow-up: Are you aware of any game mechanic consequences of this little niche problem I should be aware of, aside from what I’m currently experiencing? what sort of consequences are you concerned about? the empire of brittania probably won't have your custom kingdom as de jure if that's what you're asking, though since it isn't created yet it may inherit it based upon the counties it expects to be part of its de jure versus the kingdom titles - i'm actually not clear on how this works. however, even if it turns out the custom kingdom's not part of the empire's de jure, in practice this is unlikely to matter unless you pass the custom king title off to an AI that doesn't like you. in which case it's possible you'll see an independence faction arise.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:assassinations don't use money inherently anymore, they require personal relationships and have a very intricate plot relationship that they didn't when it was click button to kill man. relationships are, like, the actual thing CK2 is about, even more so than countries and kings. on launch if you had a 0 martial ruler you were stuck with that and the -50% levy penalty for literally their whole life. life focuses came later to allow you to at least get that up to 8 and make things possible. character stats have been inflated. vassals are more difficult to please. plotting has been elaborated. claiming is easier. laws are a bit more fiddly. death is somewhat more likely. and there are a lot more events. but the fundamental elements of gameplay are more or less intact from 8 years ago. and i can literally say this with confidence because i've dropped the game for half a decade and returned with next to zero disorientation. Zane fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Coolguye posted:assassinations don't use money inherently anymore, they require personal relationships and have a very intricate plot relationship that they didn't when it was click button to kill man. relationships are, like, the actual thing CK2 is about, even more so than countries and kings. on launch if you had a 0 martial ruler you were stuck with that and the -50% levy penalty for literally their whole life. life focuses came later to allow you to at least get that up to 8 and make things possible. Your original argument was that CK2 was not good at launch. I can't imagine anyone would argue that it's current state is unchanged from launch. But launch was still a good game. It was a perfectly fine meal that patches and DLCs kept adding to over the years like appetizers, side dishes, and deserts. Everyone who played at launch had a great dinner and had little to complain about while everyone who kept playing saw even more to enjoy as the years went on. Of course if you look back now you'd say it was a very basic game but we can only do that with hindsight. There was no feeling of things being missing (except playable Muslims!). Also you are really obsessed with the assassination change for some reason. It was fine for what it was until it changed to a Plot (as part of the expanded plot system) in the second major patch which was just 2 months after release.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2020 03:23
|
|