|
Well sometimes it's because nobody likes child rulers, and losing a liberty war at CA1 (and maybe 2) will get you deposed, which will show up in the title history as Abdication. But yea it is sometimes from stress, it's not super uncommon for kids to get trapped in stress cycles when trying and failing to learn languages; the stress penalties for failure are gigantic for some reason, and then they have no good way to lose that stress.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 16:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well sometimes it's because nobody likes child rulers, and losing a liberty war at CA1 (and maybe 2) will get you deposed, which will show up in the title history as Abdication. I've always wondered why I keep jumping over to an heir and they have like 2 stress traits already despite having been unlanded the whole time. I'm always there thinking "WTF have you even been doing that you're so stressed"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Feel like I've run into a bug where a faction won't pop off. It's a populist independence faction and it's been ready to start for like 4 years now. There's even populist leaders showing up in the faction window, and I've had so much time I've murdered three of them already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I've always wondered why I keep jumping over to an heir and they have like 2 stress traits already despite having been unlanded the whole time. I'm always there thinking "WTF have you even been doing that you're so stressed" Unlanded characters still get Stress events, but they can't call feasts or hunts to dump stress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
I have a new player question. Is there a way to meaningfully build 'up'? Like let's say I become the emperor of britannia. could i just rest on my butt and focus a whole lot of time and money on becoming a center of trade and knowledge somehow?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Jinnigan posted:I have a new player question. Is there a way to meaningfully build 'up'? Like let's say I become the emperor of britannia. could i just rest on my butt and focus a whole lot of time and money on becoming a center of trade and knowledge somehow? I'm the proiest pro CK3 player ever but if you were looking to build an empire of knowledge the thing to look into would be your Culture, Religion, and Development. Development of counties increases the rate of innovation research for the culture of that county - so lots of British counties with high development will mean that British can complete its tech tree much faster. At a prestige cost you can also add new traditions to your culture to add in certain bonuses and abilities (like Court Eunuchs lets you castrate your prisoners!!). There's a LOT of reading that goes into the benefits of all of those, though. If you diverge your culture you can also - I forget the correct terminology - change its basic "ideology", like going from a Bellicose to a Stoic culture. Then there's your religion. There's a lot of bonuses to creating a new faith, so long as you appropriately beat down whatever came before. The key to giving Catholicism a good rogering for example is to make sure you spay and declaw the Pope as soon as possible so you can't be crusaded. Your new religion can have rules that make life easier for you. Highly recommend keeping a spiritual head of faith and landing+vassalising them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Barring single-province culture cheese (which still doesn't get you far), the only real way to build 'up' is to just pour money into buildings. And the effect is pretty subtle, and takes forever to pay off, so it's not really equivalent to the video game concept of tall vs wide; trade or centralized industry aren't part of this game. So yea, annexing land will always give you more gold and troops. That being said, if conquest isn't interesting, there's a lot of reformation of your culture & religion that Nobody Interesting posted above which can give good goals. Since it's a make-your-own fun game, once you've got the hang of it you can try to push a square peg through a round hole and try to make it work. Get the Norse DLC, abandon lovely Scandanavia, relocate somewhere awesome, and build a kingdom based on raiding. The DLC strongly encourages that, but even the the raiding-as-a-lifestyle gets boring, and you run out of things to spend gold on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
What is it about this game which makes people whom played CK2 previously seem to either adore it or think it's basically a bland shadow of the former title? In particular I've ran a few people saying that CK3 is not worth picking up if one has most or all of CK2's DLC , which I can understand in a sense but feels a bit too simplistic. I know this title hasn't gotten the most auspicious DLC but at least initially people have seemingly liked it, and from what I've seen it's not massively cut down versus its predecessor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 11:08
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:What is it about this game which makes people whom played CK2 previously seem to either adore it or think it's basically a bland shadow of the former title? In particular I've ran a few people saying that CK3 is not worth picking up if one has most or all of CK2's DLC , which I can understand in a sense but feels a bit too simplistic. I know this title hasn't gotten the most auspicious DLC but at least initially people have seemingly liked it, and from what I've seen it's not massively cut down versus its predecessor? I’ll admit I haven’t played CK2 since 3 came out but the richness of DLCs like Sons of Abraham and Jade Dragon are still pretty sorely missed. Myself included because even though I know good approximate mods are out there for these types of features in CK3, I just can’t bring myself to not play Ironman. Not to mention Byz’s inheritance is still primogeniture and it’s been over 2 years since release. It’s like we’re playing with a B school grade for 2 years since the team knows the DLCs will inch it closer to A+ because there is no due date for the assignment. It’s like they know they’re too unique to the gaming market/landscape to really hustle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
I miss the weirder stuff like lunatic giving a bunch of new options, glitterhoof, demon children, immortality
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
I definitely miss some of the DLC features from CK2 but overall I don't see myself returning to 2 at this point, I find CK3 much more pleasant to play overall even with less features, and I think what's there + the DLC so far has been overall really great. I do wish we had weirder stuff from lunatic and such and Sons of Abraham and Jade Dragon are also my most misses expansions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
I could never go back to CK2 now, I like the CK3 new mechanics and interface and even prefer how it looks But it is indeed right now a game with a lot less flavor and content and different experiences when compared to 2. It has much less variety and replayability. I see very little reason to play anything but christian europeans or norsemen, whatever else is just a blander version of them. Theres very little real variety in government types, theres a huge gaping hole where trade is supposed to be It will catch up, I hope, but they been kinda slow at that Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Also I think they will eventually have to admit they hosed up in the war department and it needs some heavy rebalancing or even to be redone from scratch
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:What is it about this game which makes people whom played CK2 previously seem to either adore it or think it's basically a bland shadow of the former title? In particular I've ran a few people saying that CK3 is not worth picking up if one has most or all of CK2's DLC , which I can understand in a sense but feels a bit too simplistic. I know this title hasn't gotten the most auspicious DLC but at least initially people have seemingly liked it, and from what I've seen it's not massively cut down versus its predecessor? So I am entirely that person so I can give you a huge list of my reasons. Granted these are old impressions and some may have been changed, I've tried replaying CK3 after each update but I never last longer than maybe 4 hours. I hate the changes to combat. While the tactics system in CK2 was inscrutable and retainers had some issues, CK3 doubles down on all the issues retainers have and makes them infinitely worse and makes levies trash and introduces dynasty warriors in knights. Nothing rallies on the map so there's no sense of your kingdom rallying together, your properly built men at arms are insane but also you're just focusing solely on one unit, levies are trash and exist only to drain your gold in the early game for bodies. The technology system is a mess, it being tied to culture and not location makes some sense, but the best way to handle that is to remove your culture from the map except for one highly developed province which doesn't seem to have any downsides because no one ever converts provinces but yourself anyway and can still be whatever culture fine. As well the techs are pretty discrete improvements, both good and bad, I liked the hands off super gradual stuff in CK2, and it brings in siege weapons that play into war, where the best siege weapons basically remove sieges. The CB system is overhauled entirely. It's much easier to get any kind of CB seemingly regardless of religion, including kingdom tier CBs. Your councilor also will always fabricate that CB eventually, there's no chance based system, I no longer feel like I'm scrabbling for CBs or have to settle for small chunks anymore. Character stats feel insanely inflated, I no longer feel I have to suffer from a mediocre character, they tend to all somehow have insanely monstrous stats when they die (in the 40s if not higher). Similarly the eugenics game is no longer a case of you occasionally getting really great rulers from decent ones, once you get rolling you basically have super humans. Of course this makes the problem of your dynasty loving incest regardless of what religious setup you have even worse because all those traits make it even more attractive for them. I know there was a royal court dlc, so maybe this one was fixed, but there's no more a massive group of dickheads who just want you to suffer preventing your every move now. You just have to make sure the most powerful guys are on your council General lack of different feeling playing in other parts of the world, everyone starting with gavelkind makes the worst downside of being pagan now just a feature for everyone, and leads to everything feeling quite samey. On the other hand the character interaction stuff is all generally great. I like you have more things to do not tied to any specific way of life. However of course the ways of life are a mess where it feels like the best thing to do is to get the many many powerful perks on the first 1-2 nodes on the tree. I generally like the religious customization but it really needs those more defining trait picks from Holy Fury for reformation. Also way more and much better selectable icons without relying on a mod. This is also massively petty compared to everything else on the list, but the music in CK2 is worlds better than CK3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Eimi posted:So I am entirely that person so I can give you a huge list of my reasons. Granted these are old impressions and some may have been changed, I've tried replaying CK3 after each update but I never last longer than maybe 4 hours. I agree with most of those things The tech and combat systems specially are in need of a complete overhaul imo edit: the tech system is also very dependent on your ruler stats, so combined with eugenics, it can be gamed ridiculously, a high learning character with the right skills can blast through techs in like 5-7 years each.With a small culture, you could be out of techs to learn in like 200 years into a game, if wants for those hard date constrains (and having date constrains is dull and bad, imo). And of course, that, like super retinues, is also only available for the human player, so the AI is always playing with a handicap Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Also I think they will eventually have to admit they hosed up in the war department and it needs some heavy rebalancing or even to be redone from scratch How so? The only thing I've really noticed / hate about war in 3 so far is that attrition is absolutely brutal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Nobody Interesting posted:How so? The only thing I've really noticed / hate about war in 3 so far is that attrition is absolutely brutal. Im talking mostly about MaA being so overpowered, and specially overpowered when used in a way the game clearly didint meant them to be used (specializing in 1 strong type, ignoring that whole variety of them) and that the AI cant or refuses to mimic. It makes war & conquest just ridiculously easy after you know what you are doing. And there aint much to know Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Nobody Interesting posted:How so? The only thing I've really noticed / hate about war in 3 so far is that attrition is absolutely brutal. The player has a massive advantage over the AI unless you intentionally play like the AI does (keep diverse MAA and middling knights). The player could also game the ck2 system of retinues for a massive advantage but that was at least much less obvious and very hard to do accidentally (unless you were a republic). Which is imo just part of why ck3 fails to grab me, personally - there’s very little pushback on anything. Vassals who hate my guts stay in line almost all the time, neighbors who could crush me just accept me chipping away at their territory, the people accept massive cultural or religious changes with basically a shrug. I feel like the only character on the map with opinions and plans. That said the ui and graphic improvements are so good that I can’t go back to ck2. So I just play way less - once in a while I get a ck hankering (like right now) but then when I accomplish my goals in the game I just put it down until I get a hankering again. In ck2 when I accomplished my goals I’d come up with new goals or start a diff game somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
I also like how the retinue system eventually leads to you centralizing the army. If you start from the old gods start warfare goes through 3 very distinct stages of like, tribal warfare where you call all your constituent chiefs as allies, to levying most of your forces from your vassals, to eventually being able to rely on retinues and mercenaries and your own personal household troops for big wars. I also really liked the tactics system of CK2 because it incentivized keeping some cultures landed for their tactics. So you'd get a thing where if you border Central Asia or the Pontic Steppe you might want to keep altaic vassals around for their beastly militarh tactics. I always thought that was really cool because it provides a mechanics based incentive to recreate similar historical situations, like the use of turkic mercenaries or Hungary's dominion over the Cumans
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:It makes war & conquest just ridiculously easy after you know what you are doing. And there aint much to know So don't stack MaA? I'm running around Africa with a 50/50 mix of Bush Archers and Sahel Horsemen, and yeah I don't win every fight, but it's fun with the uncertainty. Sub-Saharan Africa in general is a great place to screw around and have fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Also retinues were a standing army that you had to manually move to where you needed them on the map and levies had to be raised from the vassals own provinces, both these things made defending big empires at least a bit harder and slower Now you can just pop your whole army wherever you need it to be (you just have to wait a bit longer if its too far from your capital)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, I missread edit 2: vvvv yeah this Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
binge crotching posted:So don't stack MaA? I'm running around Africa with a 50/50 mix of Bush Archers and Sahel Horsemen, and yeah I don't win every fight, but it's fun with the uncertainty. Sub-Saharan Africa in general is a great place to screw around and have fun. I prefer having to optimize my gameplay because the game is challenging instead of intentionally just playing poorly because the game is too easy
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
It seems like an easy improvement would be to make it so you can only have max 1 of a given unit type in your MAA. I thought about making a mod but I don’t know if that’s possible to adjust and also I am the worst programmer in the world. It’s interesting that both ck2 and 3 have the problem of a diverse combined arms approach being vastly inferior to having completely uniform soldier types. That seems like a counterintuitive thing to incentivize. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess my point is that you don't need to go all in on cyborg MaA. Playing with 5k Varangians is fun for taking on a 50k stack of Byzantines, but it's also just as much fun to mix some units together and do whatever. It's like stat stacking, why bother? My ruler is 5/10/13/9/24 with a 2* learning education, and doing just fine. I will say that once I get some Camel Riders though I'm going to go with a mix of Camels and Sahels, because I feel like thematically they work well together. They are going to be dogshit for the hills and jungles in the south of Sub-Saharan Africa, but I'll figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
All of this debate is overshadowing the fact thst frickin elder kings 2 is out
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
I think there’s just a general lack of friction. I didn’t play CK2, but a lot of the friction there seemed to stem from inscrutable UI and systems. It’s good that those were made easy to understand and work with, but then there wasn’t any gameplay friction introduced to replace it, so often it feels like you’re just doing whatever you want in a sandboxy way rather than playing a strategy game. It also really detracts from the game’s focus and biggest strength - the RPG/character side of the game - when the relative lack of friction makes characters all kind of the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Yeah when I first started up ck3 I see that one of my vassals is an “analytic villain” and I’m like oh poo poo I should watch out for him! But he’s just happy to be there. They’re almost all just happy to be there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Even with nerfs to it's accumulation dread is too good at keeping the rare unhappy vassal scared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
The biggest thing missing is the council. Yeah, CK3 has a council, but it's not nearly the same, because the CK2 council would actually block your actions if they didn't like them (or you). And since it was much harder to get positive relations, it was a constant source of drama and interesting decisions. You'd often go to declare a war or grant a title and find that you couldn't do it without tyranny because the one malignant asshat on the council had bribed half the others to follow her lead for several years. The CK3 council is just another tool for the player to wield in accomplishing her goals; the CK2 council felt like a bunch of whiny people with their own goals and thoughts. e: Dread is a cool idea on paper, but people barely bother opposing you when they're not afraid. If it's going to be so easy to make people happy or scared, then the failure state - they hate you and aren't scared of you - should be a serious deal where they screw you over at every turn. Instead, you have tons of tools for managing your vassals and don't even need them because nobody tries anything anyway. megane fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
My big balance complaints with CK3 is that having a royal court that is significantly above your expected grandeur level gives you so high opinion and popular opinion bonuses that factions stop existing and the base vassal limit is way too high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:My big balance complaints with CK3 is that having a royal court that is significantly above your expected grandeur level gives you so high opinion and popular opinion bonuses that factions stop existing and the base vassal limit is way too high. That's a huge problem actually, yeah. Probably one of the reasons I prefer to stay as a Duke or a small King. I love some of the stupid bugs in this game. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:My big balance complaints with CK3 is that having a royal court that is significantly above your expected grandeur level gives you so high opinion and popular opinion bonuses that factions stop existing This would even be fine if it was actually a commeasurate financial burden to do so, but it really kinda isn't if you're remotely competent at economy, especially at endgame but - like, in my most recent game I maxed every amenity the second I hit kingdom-tier, and even as I grew to empire size (though a small empire, around 100 provinces) it has never been a significant enough cost for me to even think of changing it. Part of this is that my empire is Jazira, Mesopotamia, and Syria and my capital duchy is Baghdad, sure, so there's a lot of rich land filling my coffers. But my income as I've grown has wildly outscaled the costs of even my maxed court, so whatever realm size scaling factor is included is clearly not high enough. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Yeah the recent AI improvements have given me hope that the man at arms issue might become less so in the future (the changes help, but really just delay the time to become invincible). Royal Court being OP I don't think there's a solution to other than just nerfing it. Same with eugenics. I'm fine with the tier 1 traits being automatic but nothing above that should ever be guaranteed and as it is you are pretty much guaranteed superhuman family if you put even a token amount of effort into it without spending a single trait on the bloodline perk. If you do put effort and trait perks into it it's almost impossible to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
I feel like what would help with the whole MaA thing is to go back to a system similar to CK2, where they just ditch generic levies and you get specific troop types from buildings directly. In CK2 this was more or less a wash because outside of the one cultural building you got per holding, everything was pretty much the same, but CK3 has more terrain-specific buildings and I think they could lean into this to give different parts of the world dramatically different army compositions. They could still keep MaA, but make it so you get fewer of them but can stack them larger, essentially forcing everybody to do what experienced players are already doing where they pick one or two MaA types to specialize in and as tech improves that becomes the core of your army. They would probably have to do something different with siege weapons with this kind of change, since dedicating a whole stack to siege weapons would be a big sacrifice if you only get say 3 stacks. Maybe they could just become an integral part of all your MaA stacks, so even when most of your troops are coming from holdings, you're still encouraged to use the MaA as your vanguard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Imperator's system it eventually landed on is a really good way to do things. The composition of your levies was determined by culture, which meant there could be an advantage to keeping certain cultures around. Of course this might need some reworks to how culture is handled for more reason to spread yours otherwise. Add in a way to encourage more MaA diversity somehow and that'd be good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Even with nerfs to it's accumulation dread is too good at keeping the rare unhappy vassal scared. At least dread is not so easy to get anymore, but truth is you don’t even need dread I usually go by easy enough with diplo and vassal pleasing. Befriend and thoughtful, both level 1 perks, are usually enough to pacify any court
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:This would even be fine if it was actually a commeasurate financial burden to do so, but it really kinda isn't if you're remotely competent at economy, especially at endgame but - like, in my most recent game I maxed every amenity the second I hit kingdom-tier, and even as I grew to empire size (though a small empire, around 100 provinces) it has never been a significant enough cost for me to even think of changing it. Court amenities should siphon from realm development growth if they're above the expected level and they should slowly pull from development if they're maxed, so that over enough time they'll always cost you more than you're making all that stuff's gotta come from somewhere and it would create a balance between strengthening your own position internally vs strengthing your realm against outsiders. also would be a good way to model the stagnation of large, internally stable empires with decadent leadership that collapse under external pressure
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Thank you for the wealth of replies on this! I was expecting to see the issues with lack of friction and a sameyness (Which you're seeing a bit with Victoria 3 funnily enough) but the extra info on the council & vassal management is good to know too. When it comes to actually trying CK3 I've always been on the fence due to owning all relevant DLC for CK2, and fearing that I am getting pulled mostly by its style rather than its substance, albeit that the encouragement to actually play along with one's character is quite compelling and most welcome. Really the the bit about the Council is most damming because I always felt it was great at forcing you to have to play around vassals and appoint people whom may not be the most skilled, which beforehand you did every time. I get how it could be really annoying but there was a wealth of ways you could actually get vassals on side. Also I suppose it bears mentioning that the base game has finally has a compelling sale going for it on GreenManGaming at -32% off, which is probably the strongest temptation to pick it up so far! Is it worth it with that price? Still not sure but at least I have a better understanding of what it does badly now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Value-for-money is always a very dicey prospect for Paradox titles. You're always gonna be in the hole and have a sunken cost fallacy about buying the next DLC which will surely fix all these problems you have with the game, we promise.... I was inebriated and bored when I bought the Ck3 Imperator edition, or whatever they called the initial bundle. The most recent fluff DLC was the first point in which I'd have to pull out my wallet again, and I decided not to as I'm mostly done with the game. So was it worth ~$100? ...eh, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 00:04
|
|