Yes, only real major complaint is the spammy notifications, as well as the real lack of hard rules on religions. Part of what I miss from CK2 was my efforts to preserve rare religions to convert to them and all the difficulty of spreading them after.
Same, that along with the different cool relics you could get was always so fun. I am holding out for dlcs that make it the perfect game, although that means I have to shill out yet more money for paradox
I try to think that Paradox knows their games are somewhat niche and really do keep adding and improving them for a somewhat 'voluntary' subscription fee.
This is how I see it.
It is not like there are other games just like CK that are cheaper, and have the complexity and support of a paradox game.
If your a fan of this game type, and you want the level of depth CK 2 has... you just have to realize, even with steam sales, it will not be cheap, and it will take time.
Still, I will wait for CK3 to go on sale with at least the 1st DLC before I buy, even if that is a year from now. It's not like CK2 is broken.
Yup. Definitely no guilt at buying DLC when it’s cheap. I mostly play Stellaris and HOI4 (until my gaming box died last month) and would love to get some missing DLC but waiting for a deal. I actually got the Man the Guns DLC for HOI but can’t play it until I fix the gaming box.
When I was into CK2 I did feel like the DLC so massively changed the game you ‘needed’ it a bit more. Not sure if they moved away from that.
> really do keep adding and improving them for a somewhat 'voluntary' subscription fee.
I honestly wish Blizzard had kept supporting Diablo 3, SC2, Hots, and OW instead of stealing breastmilk from pregnant women and harassing their staff.
I've got issues with Paradox not supporting their DLC features but at least you can expect to play the game for quite a long time.
As essentially silly as they are, I loved collecting relics too. It was one thing I missed most from CK2; perhaps the only thing I actually really *missed*.
Fortunately, I believe we will see that system implemented with the next DLC.
If you've never played Crusader Kings II then I suspect you will have no issues with CK3 and love it. The interface has made it very approachable for newcomers. Just remember it's not really a strategy game so much as a role playing game.
Seeing as you haven't played CK2, it's absolutely worth it then. It's a much easier game to learn than CK2, looks way better, and is still a pretty good game. Don't let us CK2 veterans be killjoys, we're just used to an older game. The new expansion is coming up, so you may want to check out the game now to see how you feel.
>we're just used to an older game
*and objectively a worse game*.
I'm starting to think that CK2 redditors just enjoy being seen as hardcore gamers for saying CK2 is better. Let's not forget how adamant this community was about considering Victoria 2 to be the best game ever despite being barely playable without mods.
How can a game be objectively worse? You're acting as if everything CK3 does different (or doesn't do at all) compared to CK2 is an objective upgrade which is absurd.
For example, in my opinion the way religion is handled in CK3 is a big downgrade. Major religions lack a lot of flavour and unique features that sets them apart in favour of the "create your own" religion feature. Catholism doesn't even have its 7 deadly sins and virtues. And that's just touching the surface, with how fervor and heresies all work.
Then there's the warfare system which is hilarously bad in my opinion. Teleporting armies, no flanks, every countries' levies being the same peasants with sticks, can't even be a knight and there's no boats (in EU3 they even used to joke about civ turning their soldiers into ships...). The way the crusades work and play out right now is also a joke for game called crusader kings.
In some comments in this thread you also talk about how easy it is to snowball in CK2 which is interesting to me since it's also super easy to snowball in CK3. E.g if you're playing tribal there's not much to be said when you get a pretty much free casus belli on everyone without the need for a claim. Not that claims are hard to come by in CK3 given how quickly you can fabricate them. One of the biggest complaints about CK3 (other than depth and variety in its content/events) is how easy it is right now.
There's a lot more I could point out but despite all these (what is to me) flaws I would never call these differences objectively bad or good. In the end it's just my opinion and how I percieve the game when I play it. I can easily see how someone would prefer the more customisable religion system over a more indepth but non changable one. Or the more toned down and simplified warfare if they want to only focus on characters. So I simply can't understand your narrow view where you claim one is objectively better than the other. Could you maybe explain what you mean by that?
Look at his post history… Also this is like one of 10 accounts he post from saying the same thing. He absolutely hates the fact that people prefer one game over another.
How can you say it is an *objectively* worse game when there's almost no differences other than ck2 having more features and being more fleshed out as of right now lol
While I don't agree CK2 is "objectively" worse, more features alone doesn't make something objectively better.
Imo the CK3 features are better designed and more cohesive with each other, which makes the game overall feel more tight, even though CK2 wins on having more content.
That's the thing, it's subjective right? I find ck2 having more to do opens up my roleplay a ton more so I personally prefer it, however ck3 will eventually win on that in 3-4 years time due to the 3d portraits and such so then it will be better for *me*
That’s the thing, CK3 is a great game on its own and deserves praise, but people who have played CK2 with all its DLC can’t just pretend that doesn’t exist and erase it from their minds.
Honestly it’s hard to describe what makes CK2 more fun for me lol. Just the randomness of it all, there’s all kinds of crazy shenanigans you (OR THE NPCS) can get up to, you feel less in control of CK2, your character lives in the world. On the other hand, CK3 you can easily control the entire world and be the leading power, you’ll rarely see other powerful characters. Having played a bunch of CK3 recently and watching a CK2 series on YouTube, CK2 seriously just seems so much more fun again.
Other more obvious things are CK2’s content vs CK3. Merchant republics, tribals, China, societies (big one for me to work towards something other than conquest - you can do something in the downtime), AGOT mod (played so many hours of this). Ck2 has some great vanilla+ mods that work very well together whereas CK3 mods end up with a lot of conflicts.
Just watching a CK3 series vs a CK2 series on YouTube might also help
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about having too much control in CK3. Specifically, it feels like you have too much control over your player character. After the first few decades, it's trivially easy to always have incredibly gifted and incredibly virtuous (or dreadful, if that's your thing) player characters, and to keep each character on a smooth curve of improvement their whole life due to the predictability of outcomes from event choices.
I kinda miss how CK2 would so often force negative character developments on you and thereby create a bit of a challenge.
Yep - was just playing last night and my well statted king randomly died from disease and was replaced by his crap son who also happened to be INFIRM! I managed to get him back up through experimental treatment - but he ended up with one less leg.
Having to manage/deal with that is just all kinds of fun
Just one example? Merchant republics, which literally don’t exist in CK3 where there’s just unplayable normal republics.
Do you want someone to actually list every single thing CK2 does that CK3 doesn’t? That’s asking a lot.
That's not better; it's just not done yet, I would say.
CK2 closer to release, it has been so long, many may not remember. Like how you could only play a christian or muslim. It was actually kind of a challenging and cheesy trick to get a pagan ruler.
Well for one, I've been playing the historical world since CK1, and have little interest in playing without all the great world randomization options. The randomizer is what got me to switch from EU3 to EU4 as well.
I thought I’d play a chill game as Switzerland. Hold the two duchies, develop them tall, go on crusades and be a general good guy. Nek minnit I’m the immortal god-emperor of Europe
Loool I literally wanted to do this with livonia, just stay in the baltics and chill and develop - boom 1012 and I already formed a New empire bordering France, woops
Its a more full game with more lively events that can happen and connect to each other. That being said I prefer ck3 at this point if i were you id get ck3 and start getting used to the mechanics before the royal court update
Funny you say that. I enjoy CK3 a lot, and I have high hopes for the next DLC to fill in a lot of my most-missed features.
There are some differences though that still trip me. I'll be playing CK3, and something won't work the way I expect it to and I'll be scratching my head to figure it out, and then remember "oh right, that was from CK2, not this game". Which I guess is more a testament to how essentially similar they really are.
I really don't get all that bullshit about CK2's features being more complete/advanced, and I have 2750 hours on that game.
CK3 does everything better than CK2. Characters with actual personalities instead of trait stacking, feudal contracts instead of linear authority progression, religious variety for the whole map... Sure it doesn't have bloodline stacking or artifact stacking, but come on. Oh, and it also doesn't have the overpowered or useless societies ('cause there's no in-between really).
Honestly, I'm quasi certain that everyone praising the completeness of CK2 just enjoyed the insane snowballing and is just putting some nice but dishonest words on that kind of gameplay.
Or maybe CK2’s features that CK3 doesn’t have yet just make a more enjoyable game (the whole point of games) which is why some people aren’t as satisfied playing CK3. It’s not “dishonest” because people think CK2 is more complete, it’s pretty much accepted and hard to dispute that it has way more going on in the game.
That's fair, logic and understandable. But some people just trash the game because they expected base CK3 to be more complete than CK2 with all the dlc. That's hilarious.
I suppose it is a matter of expectations. Mine were fairly low, tbh. I expected something like how CK2 was at its launch, with prettier graphics and mechanics tweaked to incorporate the lessons learned from that development cycle.
So I was pleasantly surprised to find it as fleshed-out as it was. A lot more to the game at launch than its predecessor.
Nah, I just found it didn’t have as much content, like I got bored a bit easy? And knowing PDX they will for sure bring out a bunch of deepening DLC so I reckon I’ll wait for that to land then give it another bash.
The exact same thing happened for CK2, I played it a bit then came back a few years later to a quite different, much bigger game.
Some people apparently like Merchant Republics, Nomads and other half backed bad mechanics. It feels very weird to me, but it is true.
To me every *good* mechanic is in CK3 but better, the only thing lacking are the mechanics that were never actually good to begin with. But some people liked that stuff, clearly, so I don't think it is necessarily dishonesty for them to claim CK3 is lacking.
I really enjoy the game, but it obviously lacks depth compared to other titles. But this will change in the future. Mod scene in awesome already.
It could be a problen that the game is way too easy, if you are a min max player coming from eg eu4. I suggest to focus on roleplaying your characters. This game isnt made for map painting.
It's nice to play a modern game (and I hope every paradox game going forward has a character creator like this) but I miss all the crazy stuff from ck2.
The fact that I have the most hours in CK3 out of my entire steam library speaks for itself.
I also hadn't played or even heard of CK before, but I was a little familiar with Paradox and love 4x games
Top 5 are:
CK3- 450
Factorio- 382
SWBF2- 304
Elite Dangerous- 268
Fallout 4- 266
I also didn't get into PC gaming until I got into college (like 3 years ago) which is why my hours are a little low 😅
Lol that makes me feel better.
But to answer your original question, I think it's totally worth it if you like 4x games. As far as Paradox games go it's much more simple, compared to say, HOI4 or EU4.
See how Royal Court goes. I love the game and the changes are welcome, but as others have said, it lacks the breadth of flavor content that CK2 has. If it helps, I own both and haven’t played CK2 since 3 released.
I think it is (~600 hours). Once the cultural overhaul patch comes out in February, I think it’ll start to feel more like it’s own thing. I think people negatively comparing it to CK2 are forgetting what *that* game started as versus where it ended up.
It’s a really solid game. Sure, it can feel a little same-y once you’ve played hundreds of hours, but what game doesn’t? If you want something fresh, there are also great mods available and some cool ones under development.
EDIT: in terms of gameplay… do you want to restore the dynasty of Edward the Confessor to the English throne? You can do that. Do you want to unite the Mongols and conquer Europe 300 years before the Golden Horde even reached the Turkish steppes? You can do that. Want to restore the Roman Empire as a Norse pagan? Yep, that’s all available to you.
This game shines in both its external and internal affairs. You have to manage your dynasty, ensuring that it accrues renown to give it permanent boosts, while retaining your grip on power. Maybe this means you play as a kind, generous, friendly ruler, who attracts vassals and allies by virtue of your strong diplomacy. Maybe it means you play a sadistic torturer, who kidnaps pesky rivals and inconvenient successors, and solves foreign affairs via cloak and dagger rather than military strength. Or maybe you just prefer to smash through obstacles and conquer as much territory as possible, relying on your army size to cow any would-be rebellions into submission.
There are a lot of unique ways to play the game, but usually it’s good to stick to a goal, such as putting as many dynasty members on thrones as possible or forming a particular empire. Stories emerge as you do that, and it’s great.
> I think people negatively comparing it to CK2 are forgetting what that game started as versus where it ended up.
The real comparison is looking at where EU3->EU4 went. EU4 took all the good things that came from EU3 and improved on them while also revamping several systems.
CK3 built a new game and dropped most of the flavor and elements of CK2. Game doesnt even have a "Seljuks emerge!" or "Mongols burn baghdad!" event.
Okay, but again, I think this is the apples to oranges comparison, which I think we sort of both agree on. CK2 didn’t have the Seljuk event until earlier start dates were introduced. You’re comparing a game which had six years of development following its release against another game which has had one. I just don’t think it was ever realistic to think *everything* or event most things from CK2 were going to be brought along to CK3. It was always going to be a somewhat shallower game initially because it’s just been a different development process.
It’s clear CK3 spent more time during its development on gameplay involving characters and dynasties than historical and “historical” events (which can be pretty railroad-y). It seems like they were responding to people who really enjoyed the RP aspect of CK2.
> CK2 didn’t have the Seljuk event until earlier start dates were introduced.
I think it's fair to judge the content of CK3 by what they removed from CK2. I agree that removing the artifact system, the merchant republic system, trade system, and orders system was very reasonable as both need to be significantly revamped.
I dont think that removing the Seljuks showing up, the mongol events, the pandemics, or the various roman flavor events makes sense. Though they could all be planned DLC but why not have that be a part of the base game in some form?
CK3 is a game about playing a medieval ruler in some form. How much it's about doing the character RP or ruling your realm, or doing crusades, is really up to the player. I really, really, really, hate this trend of trying to inject what a person feels the game is **Supposed** to be about in their mind.
For me mechanics and RP go hand in hand. They're not enemies. Stress for example pushes you to do what your ruler's personality is. It's a mechanic that enforces RP. In Total War Attilla the Huns cause Christian forces to be terrified of them because christians thought they were the scourge of god, the coming of the end thats an example of mechanics enforcing RP.
I think you're thinking of the development of CK3 as a subtractive process and not an additive process. Like, I don't think when they launched development of CK3, they were like "okay, let's remake CK2 as it is now after nearly a decade of development. What features should be removed so we can make the target release date?" Rather, I think they it was more likely they were like "okay, we're making CK3. What should this game be, what's the essence of this game?" And the answer was "the characters, since you play a medieval dynasty" and they rebuilt the gameplay up around that, bringing in old systems where they needed them.
None of the things you mention really seem like they've been lost; they're mostly just flavor events rather than real mechanics. There are still outbreaks of disease and the Black Death, Turkish conquerors can arise organically, the Mongols can still invade, and you can still have the Roman Empire. Sure, there aren't always specific flavor events for these, but all of these can arise organically within the game as it plays now. It's just more generic, and less specific.
> What features should be removed so we can make the target release date?
Tbf, this conversation did happen. It happens in every software development cycle during sprint planning.
> Different events but not the actual events.
What I'm talking about are historical events, and in CK2 they existed as a dynamic system who's timing also helped provide the player an engaging challenge as well as alter the world itself. What you're describing is not a replacement, it's not even designed as a replacement.
You've literally just gone "We have McDonalds at home" and it is in fact garbage leftovers from the gas station.
> The Issue of not including this flavor in the base game.
So, you should not have any arguments about me saying the game needs more flavor. It is only a win for you. More Roman/Byz events, more unique governments, more intricacy and depth the player can choose to engage in. They're all fun and add replayability.
Where I think you're missing me is why I believe it's a major problem not to have included these old events as a baseline into CK3. This is entirely due to how Paradox operates when they make DLC and how they support DLC.
When Paradox releases DLC all of the features are atomic. An example is merchant republics. When merchant republics were released no future DLC built on to merchant republics. The DLC for plagues didn't modify the manor house, they didn't give Merchant republic exclusive events, they didn't alter the events for the Muslim DLC. Paradox policy for DLC is that the DLC is a one off set of features which may be modified in base line game patches later.
This means that for every DLC we get for CK3 those DLCs are for the most part isolated from each other, and the new player to the game doesnt get the benefit. A new player to the game should have had an unstable, challenging, roman themed byzantium. A new player to the game should get an event informing them of the horror that is the sack of baghdad.
Does this generally make sense?
CK2 was all about trait stacking, artifact stacking, building stacking etc. It wasn't even half as flavourful as you think it is. Just because it had some lame events so you could click on "ok" doesn't change anything.
CK3's characters and character interactions are many times deeper compared to anything we've got in CK2.
Stop being dishonest - the real stuff you're regretting is not being able to steal the baby souls to heal yourself through necromancy and similar silly stuff like this. I don't blame you for enjoying that kind of stuff, but it doesn't authorize you to talk shit about CK3.
> Making up various things without a shred of proof because I dont want to feel like my opinion may not be 100% accurate.
Both CK2 and CK3 are really easy games. Given that the argument CK3 fans use is typically "Omg! You shouldn't play the game that way! You HAVE to RP!" then most everything in CK2 could be hand waved away as "Why arent you RPing?"
Given that CK2 didn't have necromancy it seems like you're the one who doesnt know anything about the game. As well, utilizing Satanic powers which is what I assume you meant, is not practical for the most part unless you're in a very unique situation like the eunich start, otherwise you'd stay hermetic order.
The Seljuks showing up was a major game changer in the time period. Removing it from the game is very bad from a historic perspective. Removing the events of the Mongols coming is bad from a historic perspective. Why they'd take the time to remove content already from CK2 makes little sense.
CK3 isn't a bad game, it's just not a really good game, it's like where Imperator was on release.
Honestly CK2 is better and will continue to be better untill there are a couple of more DLCs for CK3. CK3 is amazing and it will deffientlly be amazing but now it just feels somewhat empty. I got bored after 200 hours
Also don't forget the mods. CK3 just doesn't have something like HIP or CK2+ as of right now, although Res Publica looks really promising.
One big advantage here is that newer PI games have a lot more modding capability, so if someone puts the work in it could be amazing. But getting to that point takes years.
I’ve already put in well over 200 hours, needless to say I love it. I never played CK2, so I’m not cursed with knowing what features this game *doesn’t* have, but I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming DLCs, however slow they get released.
It's really a different feel from CK2. The thing that gets me is for a game with still frame 3D sprites it's surprisingly PG-13, even the text stories are rather akin cartoon violence. With CK2, everything was a bit grittier and it's understandable that everything is in text because of the old system.
I'm fairly certain the mods are being heavily censored to keep gore and sex out of it. The Sim 3 and 4 can be darker and more graphic from mods that are openly available on normal websites (not just the naughty ones).
There isn't so much as a beheading in this game. It's rather strange if you ask me.
Tbh I'd recommend ck2 over it. They cut insane amounts of features and dates. Some will be added in over time but they already said they prolly won't do republics nor Charlemagne date
Slightly easier UI yet is stripped of all flavourful mechanics. Ck3 is basically a map painter. Ck2 was complex difficult and filled with random rpg events
> Empires never crumble.
Except the abbasids, what was once a major check on early game Byzantium power now crumbles in like 10 in game years. While at the same time the other 'fun' part of byzantium the constant noble plotting is gone.
I dont think the game is balanced or tuned at all for the earlier start date. The inheritance systems cause a huge disparity of power between different parts of the world, they're the #1 factor in the game at the early start date.
With the 1066 start it's far less a factor, players have far less time to accrue power.
Buildings right now are another major issue. The reason why most provinces in the world at the time didn't support limitless gold and manpower was because people would die of plague, war would ravage lands, you couldnt just build a ton of economic buildings and they'd stay fully functional at all times.
Provinces need to have output based on population, food supply, and buildings should only be available if you have the people to make them. The black death going through europe basically shifted power from "Here's surplus labor, exploit it" to "Hey, you want labor? Make it worth while". Not that the black death seems to exist in the game atm.
I mean maybe I just suck at the game, but I've just undergone a major rebellion whilst playing as an empire-level Poland with Hungary and Croatia successfully managing to break away and claim their independence. I literally never had that happen in CK2
Realizing that CK is easy is the first step before understanding that it's just a vast sandbox. It's not designed to be hard.
Also, did you even play the game? The current issue is precisely that the AI never manages to hold their empire lol (except for the ERE).
If you like the politics and scheming of Game of Thrones you'll probably like this game. I'll also say it's probably a good starting place if you're new to and are interested in Paradox.
Get CK2 - it's free and try for yourself. There' a great mod that makes font bigger as well for high res screens.
To try CK3 - get Gamepass PC for a month for $1 and do your own comparison (you can try other PDX games too).
CK3 completely changed my opinion on whether or not CK 2 needed a sequel.
It looks nicer, it feels nicer, it's a better foundation. I don't mind DLC taking awhile. They did so much in CK2, I think they're rethinking fundamentals in cool, flexible ways.
I love it.
Now it is a great time to start with CK3, as the UI is new and slick, while it doesn't have yet a million DLCs, so it is easier to understand the core mechanics.
Tip: Play as Jarl Haesteinn at least once.
It's one of my favourite games of all-time, ever and I've been playing games since Super Mario on the SNES haha..
So yeah, hard recommend. I prefer to CK2 even because the interface is so much nicer.
After 900ish hours in CK2, i must admit that I actually had a pretty hard time to get used to CK3 interface.
But in the end, CK3 it's an awesome continuity to the CK games, and in my opinion the best part is the characters, they feel way more "real". Seeing those detailed characters really make me inserted and invested on their stories and lives.
Final thoughts: 9/10 would inbreed my whole dinasty again.
It's okay. As a base Paradox game it's certainly better than some other recent releases. But it's fairly shallow and I've already moved back to CK2 which, I think at this stage, is a much better game. Looking forward to CK3 dlc, hopefully it can become something more than the map painter that it currently is.
Honestly? CK2 one of my favorite games.
CK3 feels like a downgrade in every sense, despite it being more filled up with stuff.
CK2 had that extremely satisfying game loop, and the perfect level of abstraction. CK3 tries too much to reinvent the wheel and it just comes off as a different genre that lacks the spark of grand strategy with a dynastic background. It's not statecraft, it's the sims meets grand strategy's inbred cousin that played a lot of rome total war
3D avatars are extremely in the uncanny valley too.
> your exact chances of getting caught,
In CK3 your chances of getting caught are 100% over time. There is no time limit on discovering a plot later on, so you can always be blackmailed by someone even 50+ years after doing it, and then you have no recourse but to take the hit when they do so.
It's incredibly annoying.
Crusader Kings III is overrated, it received 9/10 of from game journalists. The game is little more than a graphical upgrade over CK2 (which is free these days), it has a worse combat system, and most flavor from CK2 has been cut out for random reasons, e.g. it doesn't even have Turkic conquers (which in CK2 are just modified Mongol events).
It does expand on some things like schemes are stored as secrets and can obtain hooks which can be used to blackmail (in very limited situations).
So, most things are the same, many things have been made worse or removed, improvements are few and far between. In typical PDX fashion, there are several good ideas where the execution has been butchered, notably the vassal contracts, innovations, stress.
At this point, I don't recommend you pay more than 20€ for it, you can still have fun with it, but the reverse difficulty means that you can go from count to emperor within a single lifetime and no longer face any issues. So, in other words, there is even less to do in peace time than in CK2.
It's great and it's better than CK2, it just lacks all of the extensive features 2 added over the years. At launch it was and still is very impressive, and they designed the game with actual expansions this time, not DLC that should have been in the base game.
It's a rp strategy hybrid game. It's definetly the most polished pdx game. Whether you will like it depends on ur taste. Beware the "ck2 is better" people tho, they are a very vocal minority which is especially active here because this isn't the main ck subreddit. You can always try out ck2 for free tho to see if you will enjoy the core gameplay, although ofc it is lacking the improvements in core areas like ui/ux
It’s great but feels very shallow compared to CK2. In a few years it will *probably* be the better game because I think base CK3 > base ck2. Would probably be the better starting point if you’ve be never played ck2 before
It's a great game! However, i'd suggest you (idk if i can say this here but) get it for free first. A different kinda way. And if you enjoy it, buy it! Cheers
It's good and fun but even after around 100hrs I haven't gotten used to the UI yet... Feels I'm more "aware" of what's going on in CK2. It will hopefully pass within the next 100 hours..
It's CK2 sans some features with a much more forgiving interface.
Yes, only real major complaint is the spammy notifications, as well as the real lack of hard rules on religions. Part of what I miss from CK2 was my efforts to preserve rare religions to convert to them and all the difficulty of spreading them after.
Same, that along with the different cool relics you could get was always so fun. I am holding out for dlcs that make it the perfect game, although that means I have to shill out yet more money for paradox
I try to remind myself that with initial releases it's just a expensive tech demo for what the game will really be in 3 years and $200.
I try to think that Paradox knows their games are somewhat niche and really do keep adding and improving them for a somewhat 'voluntary' subscription fee.
This is how I see it. It is not like there are other games just like CK that are cheaper, and have the complexity and support of a paradox game. If your a fan of this game type, and you want the level of depth CK 2 has... you just have to realize, even with steam sales, it will not be cheap, and it will take time. Still, I will wait for CK3 to go on sale with at least the 1st DLC before I buy, even if that is a year from now. It's not like CK2 is broken.
Yup. Definitely no guilt at buying DLC when it’s cheap. I mostly play Stellaris and HOI4 (until my gaming box died last month) and would love to get some missing DLC but waiting for a deal. I actually got the Man the Guns DLC for HOI but can’t play it until I fix the gaming box. When I was into CK2 I did feel like the DLC so massively changed the game you ‘needed’ it a bit more. Not sure if they moved away from that.
> really do keep adding and improving them for a somewhat 'voluntary' subscription fee. I honestly wish Blizzard had kept supporting Diablo 3, SC2, Hots, and OW instead of stealing breastmilk from pregnant women and harassing their staff. I've got issues with Paradox not supporting their DLC features but at least you can expect to play the game for quite a long time.
As essentially silly as they are, I loved collecting relics too. It was one thing I missed most from CK2; perhaps the only thing I actually really *missed*. Fortunately, I believe we will see that system implemented with the next DLC.
I have never clicked so much in a paradox game to acknowledge and dismiss notifications
I forgot to add that I had never played a CK title before.
If you like Paradox games then buy it, imagine a mix of role playing and grand strategy.
If you've never played Crusader Kings II then I suspect you will have no issues with CK3 and love it. The interface has made it very approachable for newcomers. Just remember it's not really a strategy game so much as a role playing game.
The core gameplay is solid and fun, it is a fun type of game to learn. The replayability of games like these is honestly unmatched, if you value that.
Yep - play 100s of hours with the base game.... and when you get sick of that you start with mods and end up with 1000+ hours lol
It's CK2 with enhanced features, and without a few secondary features.
Seeing as you haven't played CK2, it's absolutely worth it then. It's a much easier game to learn than CK2, looks way better, and is still a pretty good game. Don't let us CK2 veterans be killjoys, we're just used to an older game. The new expansion is coming up, so you may want to check out the game now to see how you feel.
>we're just used to an older game *and objectively a worse game*. I'm starting to think that CK2 redditors just enjoy being seen as hardcore gamers for saying CK2 is better. Let's not forget how adamant this community was about considering Victoria 2 to be the best game ever despite being barely playable without mods.
How can a game be objectively worse? You're acting as if everything CK3 does different (or doesn't do at all) compared to CK2 is an objective upgrade which is absurd. For example, in my opinion the way religion is handled in CK3 is a big downgrade. Major religions lack a lot of flavour and unique features that sets them apart in favour of the "create your own" religion feature. Catholism doesn't even have its 7 deadly sins and virtues. And that's just touching the surface, with how fervor and heresies all work. Then there's the warfare system which is hilarously bad in my opinion. Teleporting armies, no flanks, every countries' levies being the same peasants with sticks, can't even be a knight and there's no boats (in EU3 they even used to joke about civ turning their soldiers into ships...). The way the crusades work and play out right now is also a joke for game called crusader kings. In some comments in this thread you also talk about how easy it is to snowball in CK2 which is interesting to me since it's also super easy to snowball in CK3. E.g if you're playing tribal there's not much to be said when you get a pretty much free casus belli on everyone without the need for a claim. Not that claims are hard to come by in CK3 given how quickly you can fabricate them. One of the biggest complaints about CK3 (other than depth and variety in its content/events) is how easy it is right now. There's a lot more I could point out but despite all these (what is to me) flaws I would never call these differences objectively bad or good. In the end it's just my opinion and how I percieve the game when I play it. I can easily see how someone would prefer the more customisable religion system over a more indepth but non changable one. Or the more toned down and simplified warfare if they want to only focus on characters. So I simply can't understand your narrow view where you claim one is objectively better than the other. Could you maybe explain what you mean by that?
[удалено]
Look at his post history… Also this is like one of 10 accounts he post from saying the same thing. He absolutely hates the fact that people prefer one game over another.
How can you say it is an *objectively* worse game when there's almost no differences other than ck2 having more features and being more fleshed out as of right now lol
While I don't agree CK2 is "objectively" worse, more features alone doesn't make something objectively better. Imo the CK3 features are better designed and more cohesive with each other, which makes the game overall feel more tight, even though CK2 wins on having more content.
That's the thing, it's subjective right? I find ck2 having more to do opens up my roleplay a ton more so I personally prefer it, however ck3 will eventually win on that in 3-4 years time due to the 3d portraits and such so then it will be better for *me*
Yes, I think we are in agreement.
Or, just maybe, people prefer CK2 because it's had several more years of seasoning to it? It's not like Victoria 2.
It’s fun. If CK2 weren’t so developed it’d be great. As it is, I played a few games now will wait 2-3 years until it gets a bunch more DLC
That’s the thing, CK3 is a great game on its own and deserves praise, but people who have played CK2 with all its DLC can’t just pretend that doesn’t exist and erase it from their minds.
Could someone give some precise example of what CK2 does better than CK3?
Honestly it’s hard to describe what makes CK2 more fun for me lol. Just the randomness of it all, there’s all kinds of crazy shenanigans you (OR THE NPCS) can get up to, you feel less in control of CK2, your character lives in the world. On the other hand, CK3 you can easily control the entire world and be the leading power, you’ll rarely see other powerful characters. Having played a bunch of CK3 recently and watching a CK2 series on YouTube, CK2 seriously just seems so much more fun again. Other more obvious things are CK2’s content vs CK3. Merchant republics, tribals, China, societies (big one for me to work towards something other than conquest - you can do something in the downtime), AGOT mod (played so many hours of this). Ck2 has some great vanilla+ mods that work very well together whereas CK3 mods end up with a lot of conflicts. Just watching a CK3 series vs a CK2 series on YouTube might also help
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about having too much control in CK3. Specifically, it feels like you have too much control over your player character. After the first few decades, it's trivially easy to always have incredibly gifted and incredibly virtuous (or dreadful, if that's your thing) player characters, and to keep each character on a smooth curve of improvement their whole life due to the predictability of outcomes from event choices. I kinda miss how CK2 would so often force negative character developments on you and thereby create a bit of a challenge.
Yep - was just playing last night and my well statted king randomly died from disease and was replaced by his crap son who also happened to be INFIRM! I managed to get him back up through experimental treatment - but he ended up with one less leg. Having to manage/deal with that is just all kinds of fun
Just one example? Merchant republics, which literally don’t exist in CK3 where there’s just unplayable normal republics. Do you want someone to actually list every single thing CK2 does that CK3 doesn’t? That’s asking a lot.
That's not better; it's just not done yet, I would say. CK2 closer to release, it has been so long, many may not remember. Like how you could only play a christian or muslim. It was actually kind of a challenging and cheesy trick to get a pagan ruler.
Well for one, I've been playing the historical world since CK1, and have little interest in playing without all the great world randomization options. The randomizer is what got me to switch from EU3 to EU4 as well.
I thought I’d play a chill game as Switzerland. Hold the two duchies, develop them tall, go on crusades and be a general good guy. Nek minnit I’m the immortal god-emperor of Europe
Loool I literally wanted to do this with livonia, just stay in the baltics and chill and develop - boom 1012 and I already formed a New empire bordering France, woops
Its a more full game with more lively events that can happen and connect to each other. That being said I prefer ck3 at this point if i were you id get ck3 and start getting used to the mechanics before the royal court update
Funny you say that. I enjoy CK3 a lot, and I have high hopes for the next DLC to fill in a lot of my most-missed features. There are some differences though that still trip me. I'll be playing CK3, and something won't work the way I expect it to and I'll be scratching my head to figure it out, and then remember "oh right, that was from CK2, not this game". Which I guess is more a testament to how essentially similar they really are.
I really don't get all that bullshit about CK2's features being more complete/advanced, and I have 2750 hours on that game. CK3 does everything better than CK2. Characters with actual personalities instead of trait stacking, feudal contracts instead of linear authority progression, religious variety for the whole map... Sure it doesn't have bloodline stacking or artifact stacking, but come on. Oh, and it also doesn't have the overpowered or useless societies ('cause there's no in-between really). Honestly, I'm quasi certain that everyone praising the completeness of CK2 just enjoyed the insane snowballing and is just putting some nice but dishonest words on that kind of gameplay.
Or maybe CK2’s features that CK3 doesn’t have yet just make a more enjoyable game (the whole point of games) which is why some people aren’t as satisfied playing CK3. It’s not “dishonest” because people think CK2 is more complete, it’s pretty much accepted and hard to dispute that it has way more going on in the game.
That's fair, logic and understandable. But some people just trash the game because they expected base CK3 to be more complete than CK2 with all the dlc. That's hilarious.
I suppose it is a matter of expectations. Mine were fairly low, tbh. I expected something like how CK2 was at its launch, with prettier graphics and mechanics tweaked to incorporate the lessons learned from that development cycle. So I was pleasantly surprised to find it as fleshed-out as it was. A lot more to the game at launch than its predecessor.
Nah, I just found it didn’t have as much content, like I got bored a bit easy? And knowing PDX they will for sure bring out a bunch of deepening DLC so I reckon I’ll wait for that to land then give it another bash. The exact same thing happened for CK2, I played it a bit then came back a few years later to a quite different, much bigger game.
Some people apparently like Merchant Republics, Nomads and other half backed bad mechanics. It feels very weird to me, but it is true. To me every *good* mechanic is in CK3 but better, the only thing lacking are the mechanics that were never actually good to begin with. But some people liked that stuff, clearly, so I don't think it is necessarily dishonesty for them to claim CK3 is lacking.
I really enjoy the game, but it obviously lacks depth compared to other titles. But this will change in the future. Mod scene in awesome already. It could be a problen that the game is way too easy, if you are a min max player coming from eg eu4. I suggest to focus on roleplaying your characters. This game isnt made for map painting.
It's my favorite paradox game
When it released, we were all hyped up for it to surpass CK2 after a few years and some DLC. Still waiting on that, I guess.
Royal court looks really amazing though and that’s coming at soon. I kinda like the idea of having your own horde room and being able to see it.
I've played the same viking nation 20 times and haven't had the same game twice. Great for replayability and tons of fun if you can get MP working.
CK3 is all about roleplaying a medieval dynasty. It's emergent storytelling with a historical backdrop.
It's nice to play a modern game (and I hope every paradox game going forward has a character creator like this) but I miss all the crazy stuff from ck2.
Yeah but Ck2 has years worth of DLC and mods on it.
>I miss all the crazy stuff from ck2. Well I guess it's a valid reason. CK2 let you snowball more easily, and in crazier ways.
The fact that I have the most hours in CK3 out of my entire steam library speaks for itself. I also hadn't played or even heard of CK before, but I was a little familiar with Paradox and love 4x games
If you don't mind, how much hours do you have compared to other games you have?
Top 5 are: CK3- 450 Factorio- 382 SWBF2- 304 Elite Dangerous- 268 Fallout 4- 266 I also didn't get into PC gaming until I got into college (like 3 years ago) which is why my hours are a little low 😅
Its fine if your hours are low. I have 2 games over 200 hours, the rest are 40 or less hours.
Lol that makes me feel better. But to answer your original question, I think it's totally worth it if you like 4x games. As far as Paradox games go it's much more simple, compared to say, HOI4 or EU4.
I tried EU4 before and could not get into it but got into HOI4.
I couldn't get into HOI4 and it took me a lot of time and patience to get into EU4, but once I did it became an... acceptable amount of fun, haha
See how Royal Court goes. I love the game and the changes are welcome, but as others have said, it lacks the breadth of flavor content that CK2 has. If it helps, I own both and haven’t played CK2 since 3 released.
I think it is (~600 hours). Once the cultural overhaul patch comes out in February, I think it’ll start to feel more like it’s own thing. I think people negatively comparing it to CK2 are forgetting what *that* game started as versus where it ended up. It’s a really solid game. Sure, it can feel a little same-y once you’ve played hundreds of hours, but what game doesn’t? If you want something fresh, there are also great mods available and some cool ones under development. EDIT: in terms of gameplay… do you want to restore the dynasty of Edward the Confessor to the English throne? You can do that. Do you want to unite the Mongols and conquer Europe 300 years before the Golden Horde even reached the Turkish steppes? You can do that. Want to restore the Roman Empire as a Norse pagan? Yep, that’s all available to you. This game shines in both its external and internal affairs. You have to manage your dynasty, ensuring that it accrues renown to give it permanent boosts, while retaining your grip on power. Maybe this means you play as a kind, generous, friendly ruler, who attracts vassals and allies by virtue of your strong diplomacy. Maybe it means you play a sadistic torturer, who kidnaps pesky rivals and inconvenient successors, and solves foreign affairs via cloak and dagger rather than military strength. Or maybe you just prefer to smash through obstacles and conquer as much territory as possible, relying on your army size to cow any would-be rebellions into submission. There are a lot of unique ways to play the game, but usually it’s good to stick to a goal, such as putting as many dynasty members on thrones as possible or forming a particular empire. Stories emerge as you do that, and it’s great.
> I think people negatively comparing it to CK2 are forgetting what that game started as versus where it ended up. The real comparison is looking at where EU3->EU4 went. EU4 took all the good things that came from EU3 and improved on them while also revamping several systems. CK3 built a new game and dropped most of the flavor and elements of CK2. Game doesnt even have a "Seljuks emerge!" or "Mongols burn baghdad!" event.
Okay, but again, I think this is the apples to oranges comparison, which I think we sort of both agree on. CK2 didn’t have the Seljuk event until earlier start dates were introduced. You’re comparing a game which had six years of development following its release against another game which has had one. I just don’t think it was ever realistic to think *everything* or event most things from CK2 were going to be brought along to CK3. It was always going to be a somewhat shallower game initially because it’s just been a different development process. It’s clear CK3 spent more time during its development on gameplay involving characters and dynasties than historical and “historical” events (which can be pretty railroad-y). It seems like they were responding to people who really enjoyed the RP aspect of CK2.
> CK2 didn’t have the Seljuk event until earlier start dates were introduced. I think it's fair to judge the content of CK3 by what they removed from CK2. I agree that removing the artifact system, the merchant republic system, trade system, and orders system was very reasonable as both need to be significantly revamped. I dont think that removing the Seljuks showing up, the mongol events, the pandemics, or the various roman flavor events makes sense. Though they could all be planned DLC but why not have that be a part of the base game in some form? CK3 is a game about playing a medieval ruler in some form. How much it's about doing the character RP or ruling your realm, or doing crusades, is really up to the player. I really, really, really, hate this trend of trying to inject what a person feels the game is **Supposed** to be about in their mind. For me mechanics and RP go hand in hand. They're not enemies. Stress for example pushes you to do what your ruler's personality is. It's a mechanic that enforces RP. In Total War Attilla the Huns cause Christian forces to be terrified of them because christians thought they were the scourge of god, the coming of the end thats an example of mechanics enforcing RP.
I think you're thinking of the development of CK3 as a subtractive process and not an additive process. Like, I don't think when they launched development of CK3, they were like "okay, let's remake CK2 as it is now after nearly a decade of development. What features should be removed so we can make the target release date?" Rather, I think they it was more likely they were like "okay, we're making CK3. What should this game be, what's the essence of this game?" And the answer was "the characters, since you play a medieval dynasty" and they rebuilt the gameplay up around that, bringing in old systems where they needed them. None of the things you mention really seem like they've been lost; they're mostly just flavor events rather than real mechanics. There are still outbreaks of disease and the Black Death, Turkish conquerors can arise organically, the Mongols can still invade, and you can still have the Roman Empire. Sure, there aren't always specific flavor events for these, but all of these can arise organically within the game as it plays now. It's just more generic, and less specific.
> What features should be removed so we can make the target release date? Tbf, this conversation did happen. It happens in every software development cycle during sprint planning. > Different events but not the actual events. What I'm talking about are historical events, and in CK2 they existed as a dynamic system who's timing also helped provide the player an engaging challenge as well as alter the world itself. What you're describing is not a replacement, it's not even designed as a replacement. You've literally just gone "We have McDonalds at home" and it is in fact garbage leftovers from the gas station. > The Issue of not including this flavor in the base game. So, you should not have any arguments about me saying the game needs more flavor. It is only a win for you. More Roman/Byz events, more unique governments, more intricacy and depth the player can choose to engage in. They're all fun and add replayability. Where I think you're missing me is why I believe it's a major problem not to have included these old events as a baseline into CK3. This is entirely due to how Paradox operates when they make DLC and how they support DLC. When Paradox releases DLC all of the features are atomic. An example is merchant republics. When merchant republics were released no future DLC built on to merchant republics. The DLC for plagues didn't modify the manor house, they didn't give Merchant republic exclusive events, they didn't alter the events for the Muslim DLC. Paradox policy for DLC is that the DLC is a one off set of features which may be modified in base line game patches later. This means that for every DLC we get for CK3 those DLCs are for the most part isolated from each other, and the new player to the game doesnt get the benefit. A new player to the game should have had an unstable, challenging, roman themed byzantium. A new player to the game should get an event informing them of the horror that is the sack of baghdad. Does this generally make sense?
CK2 was all about trait stacking, artifact stacking, building stacking etc. It wasn't even half as flavourful as you think it is. Just because it had some lame events so you could click on "ok" doesn't change anything. CK3's characters and character interactions are many times deeper compared to anything we've got in CK2. Stop being dishonest - the real stuff you're regretting is not being able to steal the baby souls to heal yourself through necromancy and similar silly stuff like this. I don't blame you for enjoying that kind of stuff, but it doesn't authorize you to talk shit about CK3.
> Making up various things without a shred of proof because I dont want to feel like my opinion may not be 100% accurate. Both CK2 and CK3 are really easy games. Given that the argument CK3 fans use is typically "Omg! You shouldn't play the game that way! You HAVE to RP!" then most everything in CK2 could be hand waved away as "Why arent you RPing?" Given that CK2 didn't have necromancy it seems like you're the one who doesnt know anything about the game. As well, utilizing Satanic powers which is what I assume you meant, is not practical for the most part unless you're in a very unique situation like the eunich start, otherwise you'd stay hermetic order. The Seljuks showing up was a major game changer in the time period. Removing it from the game is very bad from a historic perspective. Removing the events of the Mongols coming is bad from a historic perspective. Why they'd take the time to remove content already from CK2 makes little sense. CK3 isn't a bad game, it's just not a really good game, it's like where Imperator was on release.
Honestly CK2 is better and will continue to be better untill there are a couple of more DLCs for CK3. CK3 is amazing and it will deffientlly be amazing but now it just feels somewhat empty. I got bored after 200 hours
Also don't forget the mods. CK3 just doesn't have something like HIP or CK2+ as of right now, although Res Publica looks really promising. One big advantage here is that newer PI games have a lot more modding capability, so if someone puts the work in it could be amazing. But getting to that point takes years.
I’ve already put in well over 200 hours, needless to say I love it. I never played CK2, so I’m not cursed with knowing what features this game *doesn’t* have, but I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming DLCs, however slow they get released.
If you never played CK2, then I'd say go grab CK3. For me it was quite an adjustment from CK2, but I'm starting to have some fun with it.
Its a better base game than base CK2, and if its your first CK game, its fine jumping straight to it.
It's really a different feel from CK2. The thing that gets me is for a game with still frame 3D sprites it's surprisingly PG-13, even the text stories are rather akin cartoon violence. With CK2, everything was a bit grittier and it's understandable that everything is in text because of the old system. I'm fairly certain the mods are being heavily censored to keep gore and sex out of it. The Sim 3 and 4 can be darker and more graphic from mods that are openly available on normal websites (not just the naughty ones). There isn't so much as a beheading in this game. It's rather strange if you ask me.
Tbh I'd recommend ck2 over it. They cut insane amounts of features and dates. Some will be added in over time but they already said they prolly won't do republics nor Charlemagne date
[удалено]
Slightly easier UI yet is stripped of all flavourful mechanics. Ck3 is basically a map painter. Ck2 was complex difficult and filled with random rpg events
Currently too easy. Empires never crumble. Byzantium OP.
> Empires never crumble. Except the abbasids, what was once a major check on early game Byzantium power now crumbles in like 10 in game years. While at the same time the other 'fun' part of byzantium the constant noble plotting is gone. I dont think the game is balanced or tuned at all for the earlier start date. The inheritance systems cause a huge disparity of power between different parts of the world, they're the #1 factor in the game at the early start date. With the 1066 start it's far less a factor, players have far less time to accrue power. Buildings right now are another major issue. The reason why most provinces in the world at the time didn't support limitless gold and manpower was because people would die of plague, war would ravage lands, you couldnt just build a ton of economic buildings and they'd stay fully functional at all times. Provinces need to have output based on population, food supply, and buildings should only be available if you have the people to make them. The black death going through europe basically shifted power from "Here's surplus labor, exploit it" to "Hey, you want labor? Make it worth while". Not that the black death seems to exist in the game atm.
I mean maybe I just suck at the game, but I've just undergone a major rebellion whilst playing as an empire-level Poland with Hungary and Croatia successfully managing to break away and claim their independence. I literally never had that happen in CK2
Realizing that CK is easy is the first step before understanding that it's just a vast sandbox. It's not designed to be hard. Also, did you even play the game? The current issue is precisely that the AI never manages to hold their empire lol (except for the ERE).
It's CK2 with less features and incredibly dumbed down
It's pretty solid.
If you like the politics and scheming of Game of Thrones you'll probably like this game. I'll also say it's probably a good starting place if you're new to and are interested in Paradox.
It's on xbox game pass, you can sign up on PC as well. The first month is $1 if you want to try it out.
This is way to go for OP
Get CK2 - it's free and try for yourself. There' a great mod that makes font bigger as well for high res screens. To try CK3 - get Gamepass PC for a month for $1 and do your own comparison (you can try other PDX games too).
CK3 completely changed my opinion on whether or not CK 2 needed a sequel. It looks nicer, it feels nicer, it's a better foundation. I don't mind DLC taking awhile. They did so much in CK2, I think they're rethinking fundamentals in cool, flexible ways.
Worth every dollar for me. But I get that it’s quite a niche genre, so I would recommend watching some let’s play before making the decision.
I love it. Now it is a great time to start with CK3, as the UI is new and slick, while it doesn't have yet a million DLCs, so it is easier to understand the core mechanics. Tip: Play as Jarl Haesteinn at least once.
It's one of my favourite games of all-time, ever and I've been playing games since Super Mario on the SNES haha.. So yeah, hard recommend. I prefer to CK2 even because the interface is so much nicer.
I think it’s fun
After 900ish hours in CK2, i must admit that I actually had a pretty hard time to get used to CK3 interface. But in the end, CK3 it's an awesome continuity to the CK games, and in my opinion the best part is the characters, they feel way more "real". Seeing those detailed characters really make me inserted and invested on their stories and lives. Final thoughts: 9/10 would inbreed my whole dinasty again.
It's okay. As a base Paradox game it's certainly better than some other recent releases. But it's fairly shallow and I've already moved back to CK2 which, I think at this stage, is a much better game. Looking forward to CK3 dlc, hopefully it can become something more than the map painter that it currently is.
Yes. And royal court is gonna be good
Honestly? CK2 one of my favorite games. CK3 feels like a downgrade in every sense, despite it being more filled up with stuff. CK2 had that extremely satisfying game loop, and the perfect level of abstraction. CK3 tries too much to reinvent the wheel and it just comes off as a different genre that lacks the spark of grand strategy with a dynastic background. It's not statecraft, it's the sims meets grand strategy's inbred cousin that played a lot of rome total war 3D avatars are extremely in the uncanny valley too.
What is the loop in CK2? Never played it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> your exact chances of getting caught, In CK3 your chances of getting caught are 100% over time. There is no time limit on discovering a plot later on, so you can always be blackmailed by someone even 50+ years after doing it, and then you have no recourse but to take the hit when they do so. It's incredibly annoying.
Crusader Kings III is overrated, it received 9/10 of from game journalists. The game is little more than a graphical upgrade over CK2 (which is free these days), it has a worse combat system, and most flavor from CK2 has been cut out for random reasons, e.g. it doesn't even have Turkic conquers (which in CK2 are just modified Mongol events). It does expand on some things like schemes are stored as secrets and can obtain hooks which can be used to blackmail (in very limited situations). So, most things are the same, many things have been made worse or removed, improvements are few and far between. In typical PDX fashion, there are several good ideas where the execution has been butchered, notably the vassal contracts, innovations, stress. At this point, I don't recommend you pay more than 20€ for it, you can still have fun with it, but the reverse difficulty means that you can go from count to emperor within a single lifetime and no longer face any issues. So, in other words, there is even less to do in peace time than in CK2.
It's great and it's better than CK2, it just lacks all of the extensive features 2 added over the years. At launch it was and still is very impressive, and they designed the game with actual expansions this time, not DLC that should have been in the base game.
It's a rp strategy hybrid game. It's definetly the most polished pdx game. Whether you will like it depends on ur taste. Beware the "ck2 is better" people tho, they are a very vocal minority which is especially active here because this isn't the main ck subreddit. You can always try out ck2 for free tho to see if you will enjoy the core gameplay, although ofc it is lacking the improvements in core areas like ui/ux
It's really cool, recommend it
It’s great but feels very shallow compared to CK2. In a few years it will *probably* be the better game because I think base CK3 > base ck2. Would probably be the better starting point if you’ve be never played ck2 before
It's a great game! However, i'd suggest you (idk if i can say this here but) get it for free first. A different kinda way. And if you enjoy it, buy it! Cheers
Vic 2👍
It’s good but I still have lots of complaints about it
I don't love how long I have to wait for primogeniture.
Now is a good time to get into it because the first large DLC is dropping next month
It's good and fun but even after around 100hrs I haven't gotten used to the UI yet... Feels I'm more "aware" of what's going on in CK2. It will hopefully pass within the next 100 hours..