|
I don’t think I’ve ever seen dull, and incapable maybe once or twice in 1000 hrs. Before that I thought it was only used for historic figures. Definitely seen my share of imbeciles though.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
I think Mozarabism might be slightly bugged. Anything that would give an opinion malus for being of a different faith, such as the Zealous trait, will apply even if both characters are Mozarabic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 09:55
|
|
|
Neurion posted:I think Mozarabism might be slightly bugged. Anything that would give an opinion malus for being of a different faith, such as the Zealous trait, will apply even if both characters are Mozarabic. Finally, a leftist religion!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 11:52
|
|
|
 This'll be interesting, I might get in on this!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Vichan posted:Finally, a leftist religion! It makes things harder during the Hostility phase of the Struggle! Doesn't matter if you share someone's culture and you're both Mozarabic, they will have a -10 opinion malus towards you. My initial attempt at starting Uninvolved, becoming Involved, and then ending the Struggle is kind of cursed because I wanted to also go for converting all of Iberia to Mozarabism at once. I may just not do that achievement until they either fix the bug, or wait until I have completely conquered Iberia as Catholic and then try to mass-convert to Mozarabism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
has anyone tried playing this on a steam deck
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
I have been playing plain CK3, but I just bought all the expansions. So question on the royal court, is holding court really that important? So far it mostly seems to be a bunch of mildly annoying decision making. Kind of wondering if it’s really worth my time or if I can just do it every once in a while. I’ll have to play around with the hybrid culture thing. Still need to figure that out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
the royal court thing doesn’t seem very well thought or planned out tbh, idk why you pay prestige (or renown idk) to hold court and wind up having to spend money or pissing vassals off. seems like there are very few positive outcomes, I just stopped clicking the thing after a while. if anything you should pay gold to do a bunch of prestige/renown-related decisions (and pissing vassals off). plus it seems like every time I hold court I either have to fix the toilets or give some dickhead I don’t like with no skills a court job. the interactions could use a ton of work. worth the extra gold per month for the amenity that gives you added protection against murder/intrigue plots though
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah, holding court sucks, but the rest of the features are dope. Kinda fitting, TBH. You get more than enough court events passively, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Yeah the fact that it costs prestige is really dumb, if anything the action of ruling should give you prestige... But yeah you can pretty much ignore it. You still get court events, and the game will prod you to do it periodically, but it's easy to skate by doing the minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 23:58
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Is it cool to ask Crusader Kings 2 questions in here? I'm just now starting to get into the game and struggling quite a bit; even Imperator: Rome wasn't this byzantine and inaccessible. I started a game as the count of Dublin and after inheriting part of Leinster I have a demesne limit of 3/1. I can't hand off any of my counties without them going independent and the demesne penalty to levy size means I can't conquer Cil Dara to form a duchy. Am I just poo poo out of luck?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:Is it cool to ask Crusader Kings 2 questions in here? I'm just now starting to get into the game and struggling quite a bit; even Imperator: Rome wasn't this byzantine and inaccessible. Demesne level depends on Stewardship, so you can take a Stewardship lifestyle focus and marry a high Stewardship wife to counterbalance the penalties. But honestly I would play CK3 instead, especially if you're new to the game. Most of the people who talk about how much better CK2 is have thousands of hours in it and ignore all the bad stuff about the game since they're so used to it. CK3 is much more user friendly and if you're new to the series, you won't have the same qualms that CK2 vets have (where is my Sons of Abraham DLC Paradox)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Demesne level depends on Stewardship, so you can take a Stewardship lifestyle focus and marry a high Stewardship wife to counterbalance the penalties. 100% cosign. I have 2500+ in CK2 and ~1000 in CK3, and 3 did an amazing job of integrating a bunch of elements of 2 that were added piecemeal. Sure, it doesn't have all of the features of 2 yet, but it's an overall much better experience. Plus, there's all of the cultural and court mechanics, which are way better than in 2. Re: demesne issues, if your income isn't negative and you have no immediate threats (i.e., more powerful neighbors with claims on your land), just suck it up for a decade or two while taking the Stewardship lifestyle. You'll get events and traits which will raise it higher over time. Also, consider divorcing your wife and getting one with a head for realm management, 1 demesne limit is really low even for an early game count, unless you're a child in regency (regencies sucked in 2, but they sucked in a more realistic way than 3, where you have full control of your nation with your terrible child stats. At least in 2 you can designate your mother/competent sister).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
I loved CK2, and was even in the private beta. I haven't touched it since CK3 came out. 3 doesn't have all the features of 2, but the interface alone is much more intuitive. There are little things that I wish were different, and it has it's own share of OP things, but especially with the culture/religion mechanics it's a better game already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Stewardship lifestyle focus I'm pretty sure that's a DLC thing! While CK3 hasn't collpased yet under Paradox's DLC burden, it's safe to assume that new players to ck2 haven't bought the $400 of DLC and are just playing the base game since it's free. Actually I take that back, they're apparently doing a subscription model now? Not sure how I feel about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Going to disagree and say ck2 is a better game, but ck3 is a vastly smoother, slicker interface and experience. Ck3 won’t require tens of hours of trial and error to learn how to actually play like 2 will, but once you learn how to play 2, it feels a lot more alive and satisfying imo. In ck3 you just get very little pushback or responsiveness to anything you do. Play a moron with no talents and antagonize everyone and die happily of old age. Be a small fish next to a big giant power block with a hostile religion and maybe lose a county, once or twice a generation. I wanted to see how far I could push it, so I changed religion from Christianity to “we worship trees now and marry our moms” in medieval Europe and everyone is more or less fine with it, somehow. In contrast, where I fell in love with ck2 was one of my first games. I figured out tannistry enough to get my genius daughter as heir, and then once I took over as her…I lasted a year before getting assassinated. And it clicked with me - “oh, even though I had the genius trait and great stats, I had the deck stacked against me for my gender, and because a bunch of other people were in line to rule and were willing to kill for it.” The world was pushing back on my plans, and I’d have to figure out how to navigate that world. Ck3 I drop in on once in a while, and drop it as soon as I re-learn how little pushback I get on anything. Ck2 feels like a world I’m interacting with, while ck3 so far feels like my own story is self contained and mostly unchallenged. But that’s just my experience so far, and I’m hoping that changes eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
That's a good point about the powerful neighbors in ck2. MaA optimization fits into it a lot, but even cutting that out there's something else stopping large AI empires from being truly unstoppable. Maybe something to do with vassal contracts? Either way in CK2 the HRE would have a gently caress-off amount of levies, but CK3's Byzantium can barely field a larger force than Venice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
I made a ridiculously overpowered custom character in Ireland with a Norse religion and as soon as the game gave me the crusades can happen notification I got crusaded to restore england and had no way to survive lol
Jose fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 12:32
|
|
|
The lack of societies really makes the peace time between wars pretty boring and non-interactive too. Not to mention the societies were a fun way to randomize and customize your rulers quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 12:45
|
|
|
Jose posted:I made a ridiculously overpowered custom character in Ireland with a Norse religion and as soon as the game gave me the crusades can happen notification I got crusaded to restore england and had no way to survive lol If you're in Ireland how is that a problem? Let the Crusade take England, then work out your next move from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 13:39
|
|
|
Servetus posted:If you're in Ireland how is that a problem? Let the Crusade take England, then work out your next move from there. I imagine it’s still really annoying to lose a huge chunk of your realm. Even if you can take it back eventually. I think neighboring rulers do seem to be not too aggressive, but sometimes I think that’s just because the AI is not great at managing their military. I find I can usually become way more powerful than the AI even when I have a much smaller realm. As a Duke I had a military as strong as the kings next to me or even my own liege. Now as a king, I have an army easily stronger than larger kingdoms. Doesn’t help that the AI doesn’t maximize MaA very well, but that’s kind of on how MaA are designed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:I imagine it’s still really annoying to lose a huge chunk of your realm. Even if you can take it back eventually. I wish there were more claimant/dissolution factions instead of just constant populists with the occasional peasants. Getting knocked down to ducal rank from kingship is seemingly impossible. Edit: I guess I don't view losing chunks of territory as that big a deal past a certain point. That's part of the fun. The problem is that it's too hard to lose titles and drop back to count-duke gameplay after you've grabbed your first kingdom. Servetus fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
My experience with CK2 is quite different, I'd say. I never felt challenged or threatened when playing CK2 once I actually learned the game, sure you couldn't necessarily wipe out stacks that were ten times your size as easily, but you could avoid those wars if you really wanted to. Ultimately both CK2 and CK3 are sandbox experiences, and imo CK3's greater flexibility and flat-out better systems gives it a massive edge. About the only thing I even kind of miss from CK2 is societies. I'd say that CK2 is quite difficult to master, but you're not rewarded with anything better than CK3 for doing so. Both games are as hard or as easy as you want them to be--it's just easier to customize (and, in my experience, mod) in CK3, which is my preference. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Agreed but I think that, in current state, CK3 is easier anyway First because your rulers dont die nearly as easily as they did in CK2, and second because once you learned how to game MaA war becomes trivial EDIT: also, in CK2 the AI was more aggressive, I believe
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Agreed but I think that, in current state, CK3 is easier CK3 is definitely easier, no doubt there. In fact I will go back on my statement and say maybe it's actually a bit too difficult to make CK3 "hard" for players who really want a challenge. Fortunately that's not really something I'm looking for, I've always treated CK as a sandbox (after all, there is no win condition in CK), but I can at least see how someone who wants some kind of difficult strategy game might not be as satisfied with CK3. The military situation is, I think, a consequence of armies being streamlined and easier to control and manage, which I see as a positive overall. The military aspect of CK2/CK3 is one the parts I'm least engaged in, so if I see two systems where you can really clown on the AI but one is less fiddly and over quicker then I prefer that one. There's some tuning I think could be done though, as while I prefer CK3 I'd say it's hardly the perfect game (I think doomstacking is dull and would prefer to see diverse armies encouraged).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
I am on the subscription so I do have all the dlc. I also got out of my current situation by just waiting a bit until I could hire mercenaries and take the last county I needed to usurp a duchy title. I avoided Crusader Kings for a long time because I wasn't keen on the character based game play, but I have to admit it can be pretty hilarious. My second game ended when a powerful vassal was blocking my resolutions on the council. I started trying to befriend him while simultaneously cheating on his wife, and when he found out he started a rebellion to usurp my kingdom and I didn't have the manpower to stop him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I am on the subscription so I do have all the dlc. I also got out of my current situation by just waiting a bit until I could hire mercenaries and take the last county I needed to usurp a duchy title. The emergent narratives that unfold are just incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
War being easy is a big one, but also (player) realms are just way too stable. Rulers regularly live to be 90 while having incredible stats and being loved by everyone, and then they die and the succession is perfectly smooth and everyone loves the new guy just as much. You get occasional uprisings or maybe some pissy vassals, but they’re generally laughably weak (and easily dealt with because war is easy).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Ck3 is better but I still miss Sons of Abraham especially the college of cardinals, and the Byz mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
megane posted:War being easy is a big one, but also (player) realms are just way too stable. Rulers regularly live to be 90 while having incredible stats and being loved by everyone, and then they die and the succession is perfectly smooth and everyone loves the new guy just as much. You get occasional uprisings or maybe some pissy vassals, but they’re generally laughably weak (and easily dealt with because war is easy). I think a newer player might not necessarily have this experience though (in CK3), or at least that's the impression I get from reading from say the official forums where there are posts like "alliances are overpowered" and such. They get blindsided by a sudden alliance, or the enemy hiring a big pile of mercenaries, or end up with a 5-year old girl on the throne. Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Ck3 is better but I still miss Sons of Abraham especially the college of cardinals, and the Byz mechanics. Incidentally I despised the Byzantine mechanics in CK2. I think the Byzantines need something unique for sure, but I hated CK2's take on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
megane posted:War being easy is a big one, but also (player) realms are just way too stable. Rulers regularly live to be 90 while having incredible stats and being loved by everyone, and then they die and the succession is perfectly smooth and everyone loves the new guy just as much. You get occasional uprisings or maybe some pissy vassals, but they’re generally laughably weak (and easily dealt with because war is easy). I think the succession part is no easier than it was in CK2. But the fact your rulers will generally live more helps a lot your realm remaining more stable. Than theres the perks that also help a lot keeping the vassals happy which CK2 dindt had But more important, I think, is the fact that for the player is easy to keep a big realm stable once you get the hang of it, but for the AI it seems its always nearly impossible Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Succession should definitely be more contentious. In the nearly four hundred years from Hastings to Agincourt England had, like, three smooth successions. But mostly it would keep people on their toes better imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I think a newer player might not necessarily have this experience though (in CK3), or at least that's the impression I get from reading from say the official forums where there are posts like "alliances are overpowered" and such. They get blindsided by a sudden alliance, or the enemy hiring a big pile of mercenaries, or end up with a 5-year old girl on the throne. Managing factions and successions are things that took me a lot of time to figure out. I don't have many problems any more because I've learned some tricks, but early on I was definitely losing to factions, or just barely surviving them. I like never see anyone live to 90 in this game, I don't know what you guys are doing that I'm not. I think oldest I've had is like 80 something and that was one or two times. I'd say I die in my 60's like 90% of the time. If I have a robust or herculean guy, and fill out the medicine tree, then I get close to 80.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Managing factions and successions are things that took me a lot of time to figure out. I don't have many problems any more because I've learned some tricks, but early on I was definitely losing to factions, or just barely surviving them. 90 is an exageration (unless you have Octogenarians), but in CK2 rulers would normally live up to the 50s, at most 60s, while in CK3 60-70 are pretty common. But theres other stuff too: diseases are less deadly, the fact we have many things that increase health, combat is less likely to kill you (and theres L1 lifestyle perk to make it even less likely), and assassination attempts on the player seems less common too
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:Succession should definitely be more contentious. In the nearly four hundred years from Hastings to Agincourt England had, like, three smooth successions. But mostly it would keep people on their toes better imo The thing is that it is, between stuff like long reign bonuses swapping to short reign penalties, child rulers having poor stats and fewer tools, partition sticking around for centuries preventing consolidation of land and hard power in the main line, and nobles that are eager to faction for claimants or privileges. There are a lot of systems in the game to make successions contentious, but there are also a lot of counterplays to them that are, frankly, either really easy to learn or have simply become second nature to those of us who have been playing these games for A Literal Decade. (It also helps make successions easier, I agree, that people simply die less often if you put any effort into it. I harp a lot on this point if perhaps not here: too many heirs survive childhood, too many people survive disease, too many knights survive battles, so successions are frequently more orderly than they probably should be since there's a lot more time for a competent player to ensure that they are) CK3 being easier to get started in is probably why there are a lot more posts on places like the official forums or Reddit about how factions are OP or partition is Literally Satan - people that would have been driven away by the old UI are now reaching, and grappling with, the first difficulty hurdle. But that hurdle is actually really easy to surmount, or maybe it just feels that way to me! Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
True that's a very good point, I have put an unironically embarrassing amount of times into Paradox games so these systems seem a lot easier to me than they would for NewGamer58.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
The lack of regencies sucks!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Buschmaki posted:The lack of regencies sucks!! regencies sucked even more though! I absolutely want the Conclave council back though, it's way more interesting than "ratchet up CA until your nobles whine and faction, put down their pathetic rebellion and ratchet it up farther". That and Reaper's Due disease/prosperity are probably the main DLC features I miss - societies never really FIT with being a ruler exactly (Satanists particularly, all my homies hate the Satanists) and lifestyles/their event chains have filled in their "various character-driven ways to kill time during your life and make yourself OP" niche pretty neatly IMO. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
There currently isn’t a “hard” difficulty setting for ck3 which I’m hoping comes eventually and isn’t just a general opinion loss. Having a setting for higher realm stability for Ai and lower for players would be a good start. More religious and cultural strife in higher difficulty I think would be good too and getting religious protection should be much more difficult. Or something like court events get more dramatic, penalties and bonuses doubled for going against or with your culture or family or faith etc., stress loss doubled across the board with far fewer “good” break options forcing either sub optimal decisions or early death and dementia. I think the main reason they’re afraid to make the game hard is how easy a game over is if your ruler dies early your heir has one county and anyone decides to sneeze at you it’s game over. Playing as Unlanded would go a long way to easing this or letting you take over as a house or dynasty member so you aren’t just one bad succession from doom in the early game. Also the ai needs to learn to raise armies correctly. One of the reasons the great khan is so trivial to beat is they raise their stack in the Siberian hinterlands and March 100k troops across 5k supply counties for three years to get anywhere and basically just collapse and die when they arrive. I love the game but mostly for the organic storytelling and satisfaction of building up a small, tall little paradise in the medieval hell scape. Once you learn a few basic tricks there isn’t much challenge at all to going wide and just ruling everything unless you purposefully do it as bad as possible, which again is fun but the fact that you have to go out of the way for it is a bit meh. Oh and the bubonic plague should require more than just telling one random courtier to get out to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
The problem with regencies is "speed 5 waiting for things to happen to me" is just never engaging. Like many things, I'd welcome them back into the game as long as they're substantially different and more interesting than CK2's take on them.Dallan Invictus posted:I absolutely want the Conclave council back though, it's way more interesting than "ratchet up CA until your nobles whine and faction, put down their pathetic rebellion and ratchet it up farther". That and Reaper's Due disease/prosperity are probably the main DLC features I miss - societies never really FIT with being a ruler exactly (Satanists particularly, all my homies hate the Satanists) and lifestyles/their event chains have filled in their "various character-driven ways to kill time during your life and make yourself OP" niche pretty neatly IMO. Conclave council has the potential to be interesting, I certainly wouldn't mind more demanding vassals with demands that are in-line with their personalities. Royal Court imo squandered a lot of its potential for the court (which could've had some of that) and I think it's going to be difficult to recover from, since adding court events will necessarily be limited to people with the DLC. The culture part of the DLC is awesome though, so I still rate it as a good pickup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 17:44
|
|