I miss the art in ck2 events. In ck2 each event had a painting made by an artist and usually they were amazing, meanwhile, ck3 has your character making a weird face over an obscured and often generic background.
@@Omniburg there still is amazing and creative pieces of artwork though. Plus 3d models are a form of art still, it looks really nice in the Royal court imo.
CK2 feels as if you're creating history, whereas CK3 feels more of playing a simulation game. I think this is apparent with the 2D portraits in CK2, because the portraits feels along the lines of iconography moreso than a portrait.
In CK2 I was once a weak and cowardly Norse, but fighting years in wars and duels I became strong, brave, cruel may seem noble but I cheated in many of these duels, I united Norway, I killed Ragnar in duel was a magical campaign. 12 hours of play feels like minutes in ck2 and that I don't feel in ck3
The very same. Had a Venetian house who started off as pretty benevolent, working our way to the top through trade - but by the end had become domineering satanists who wrung the state for wealth. As the republic grew we fought uphill to retain the would-be-breakoff-states and some of my most famous Doges were the ones who dumped all republican virtue to become battle-scarred torturers who murdered anyone that stood in their way. Some great stories from AtE and AGoT mods with all the added dlc details as well - what a game man! 😢
I was still a noob, but I had played quite a hundred few hours at the time in non-ironman games, frankly using cheats almost every 50 years because I just wasn't good at the game... but finally, one day, I decided to change that. Played my first Ironman game in the new Iron Century start date - it went uh... in the wrong direction (I ended up making Capets Kings of Arles/Burgundy instead of France and was too late to press my claim on France... Arles was Gavelkind, some civil wars later I gave up and the rest is history) Then, I started again (still as the Capets) fresh and went for the Kingdom of West Francia (I wanted to catch that early-game Primogeniture and insure my heirs' for good)... it genuinely was my best game ever. Felt so real, like I was truly ruling like a real French dynasty desperate to maintain power against the constant rebellions after every succession. I built Francia, expanded to Mali and Libya (I also ruled Hispania at the time) and rivaled the Holy Roman Empire... before everything broke down 247 years down the line I had fought many rebellions, crushed so many of them, and relied on so many tricks and methods (i.e. dropping half of my troop count on top of the capital county of my most rebellious vassal knowing a revolt was coming soon) to stay on top. I somehow even ruled with a subpar heir (making him somehow, magically, a miracle king who crushed three rebellions and cemented his rule with bad skills)... I was prepared for most chicanery. But the one thing I never forsaw was my ruler living above 67, his first son dieing young (my grandson from him becoming my heir as per Primogeniture) and me dieing shortly after, playing as a boy king and immediately suffering 3 separate rebellions at once (most I ever did before were _2_ rebellions at the same time...) It was too much... I caved twice, lost everything until I was just a few counties including Paris... *and the Emperor of Francia* _(my 3rd removed cousin)_ *asked me for Paris* (coz the AI is hard-coded to want the capital county of their primary title) and I gave up then. Literally nothing to my character's name, locked to Gavelkind after fighting so hard to steal an early Primogeniture and about to lose my richest, most developed county... I finally stopped. Counted my blessings and saw the achievements... felt so proud of myself It was a good game. Never ever had that feeling playing any game run in CK3. Don't know if it'll ever happen again... and for the record, that CK2 game I played was with _zero_ DLCs (I was a kid with shit allowance), I tell you back then Primogeniture was _impossible_ to get
one thing i really liked about ck2 was you actually had to manage marriages for claims and expansion planning several generations in advance in ck3 you get every claim you could want in just a few months
Yeah it seemed like if you were a nobody count, there was barely any chance to fabricate claims, it seemed realistic. Now you can start as count and either the Pope randomly offers you huge duchies randomly within a few years or you can fabricate claims with 100% success chance on anything from counties to entire kingdom titles lol
I started playing ck3 like this and honestly it makes the game so much better in my opinion, it actually makes you feel like you earned that county and have a legal right to it
@@countspider6488 yeah but in my opinion it should atleast have a penalty, I’ve seen mods that put prestige and faith penalties to it and makes the game much more difficult, apart you will be more patient with the probability of a duchy claim which will be worth it
I’ve never actually played ck3 but I have quite a few hours of playtime in ck2. In ck2 you really have to plan everything for the claims. Ireland has always been my favorite place since you really need to put in effort and you really feel like it was worth it.
The CK2 levy system was far superior and much more authentic than that of CK3. That you had to raise levies from their respective regions and actually gather an army, as opposed to just teleporting all 40 thousand available men from Thrace to Iran, created situations in which you could have a local army take care of bandits, or where smaller kingdoms, who could quickly consolidate their forces, had an advantage over larger empires, which required weeks to gather their deathstacks from all over their realm. Among a host of other differences, the change to the levy system is my biggest gripe with CK3.
I agree. I think the supply system is also a letdown. It dumbs down attrition severly , and disease somehow only exists in hostile provinces during war. Meanwhile, you can move 20-30k through your entire country without losing a man because you have 100 units of supplies. The game overall suffers from the same issue HOI4 does, its been dumbed down for the sake of newer players.
that not true at all, you can get a whole army at once in ck2, you only have to assemble them if you own the provinces yourself, this was done to force the player to use vassals.
@@Vitorruy1tbf using an ubber strong vassal to instantly pop a death stack anywhere becomes quickly necessary (retenues aside especially without the DLC) when your empire spans all of Asia and Africa, i had that one Bavandid Zoroastrian Persia game where you NEED the instant 50k levies on any given front because you have 100% menace constantly lol. Otherwise if you use the regular levy all vassals armies on their capital its honestly fine in early and mid game in CK2 while the levy system in CK3 is just meh overall
Things I miss from CK2 - Trade Republics, you can play them. - the vassal screen where you can see list them by opinion. - the vassal tree where you can eyeball how many troops you'll face.
I agree! I didn’t really talk about it in the video, but I did really like the little bits of supernatural events in CK2. I also imagine that some of them aren’t magic, but are instead considered magic by your character, the same way that the possessed trait is realistically a character with mental illness but the world sees that character as possessed.
That's a good point in general. Not only in the supernatural aspects, but CK2 has a very different vibe. As Omniburg said, more regal. CK2 is 'The Name of the Rose', while CK3 is more like 'A Knights Tale'.
@@butterfacemcgillicutty yeah no shit, they mean that the story of arthur is famous for a literary style that is often using real life events but adds mythological elements to them. Like a lot of other christian saints where molded into these ancient heroes who fought dragons and saved people from evil. Arthurian means in this context the style of the story, not the story itself...
@@Omniburg Maybe magic, maybe mundane is an important thing to get the historical vibe, and it needs to "yes it's magic" just often enough to get the player in the mindset. Like the immortality quest is amazing for this, even if you have the stats to pull it off, there's a 7/8 chance you rolled a false mentor at quest start, that's absolutely perfect. Where in CK3 every witch is NOT capable of cursing me, if 1 in 8 witches were that'd be scary.
I love how in CK2 you could go on drastically different paths in your life, not just choose between different event chains like the CK3 lifestyle system. You can be the realm builder guy and develop your realm's economy; you can become a scion of a monastic order, sponsoring the faith and become beatified or canonised after you die; you can be an alchemist and philosopher, and write a magnum opus; you can even dedicate an entire playthrough to bringing forth the arrival of THE LITERAL ANTICHRIST and become the spawn of Satan yourself.
I had a rurikid russia run in ck2 (ironman) campaign and have never had such a cool experience in ck3. I conquered all the way south, and it WAS HARD keeping the realm together, made it all orthodox, then one of my characters became a canonized saint, leading to the bloodline being blessed, but BEFORE all that, the PLAGUE swept through my lands and I barely survived, my entire court alongside most my family were killed by it and there was a severe power vacuum in my realm, which would cause a chain reaction into the successors for a civil war. I also joined a crusade once, don't know how, I just did. We failed.
One of my favourite mechanics in Ck3 is dread system. It is a way to play as a ruthless tyrant without getting deposed in seconds and I really missed the feature like that when I was playing ck2. But I agree with most of what you said in the video. it feels like in ck2 you need to go through generations of overcoming challenges, obstacles and planning to achieve aomething great while in ck3 you can do this in the lifespan of a single character and from that moment you'll snowball and become only stronger without any challenge.
A point about the traits in CK2 being so much harder to get than in CK3 is that in CK2 when you get one of those characters crazy traits you really notice it. My favorite campaign in CK2 was Habsburg-ish campagin where I tried to get the borders of Austro-Hungary rather than go for the HRE. It was a normal campagin for 200 years, taking opportunistic wars against my neighbors, marrying strategically, assasinating unruly lords, etc, slowly forming the kingdoms I wanted and increasing my authority. Suddenly I have a daughter who's possessed. She's the 4th of six, but by the end of it, she's killed off all her siblings. Not wanting to lose the Emperorship, I allow female rulers (hows that for historical?) and she takes the throne, and she turns out to be an absolute beast! She's cruel, she's beautiful, and the devil himself is on her side. She has insane martial skill and manages to wreck havoc on the remaining mongols, she massively expands the borders southwards into the balkans, and mercilessly imprisons, banishes, and kills any lord who even looks at her sidewise. The absolute ruler has crushed all her enemies outside and within, accomplishing more in a lifetime than all her predecessors had done for two centuries. And then... the crusades happened. Turns out that when a massive satanic empire gobbles upeverything overnight, the rest of the world notices, and puts up a fight. Suddenly I'm facing holy wars from the catholics, the slavics, and mongols decide to jump in aswell. In a final last stand against the catholics, Satan claims her soul, and she dies in battle! The empire is torn apart and what is left shatters. The balkans, hungarians and czechs break free from the empire, and the lords lower the crowns authority with impunity. I was back to square one, only having the kingdom of Austria to my name, and a couple random holdings scattered throughout the former realm. I'd never had anything like this happen before or since, and it really shows all the things you've highlighted in this video. In CK2 you don't normally find yourself as a superhuman steamrolling the rest of the world, and when you do, the AI puts up a fight and is even comptetent enough to stop you. CK3 never really managed to give me that rush again, so I've always thought CK2 to be the better game.
Nothing changes over time in CK3 (this is part of the lack of flavor you mentioned). I have only ever gone to 1453 once for the achievement, and it was a slog. 1400 felt no different than 1066. My campaign felt pretty much complete by 1200. Sure the armies get bigger, and your gold goes up, but what does that change for gameplay? Laws and The Black Death would improve this dramatically and are my #1 and #2 hoped for features. I'm stoked for the new Legacy of Persia flavor pack. I hope it's more like Northern Lords than the Fate of Iberia.
I liked how fluidly the transition from ck2 to eu4 was when playing mega campaigns. You could really feel the differences in eras between the darker and more foreboding dark ages and it’s transition to a more hopeful renaissance era. I think the soundtrack also complimented this and the art style helped cement the game as a different period of time, just as eu4 illustrates the renaissance and Vic 2s art portrayed an industrial world.
CK2 will always be more fun because of the genuine danger you can face to your playthrough. My favourite example is in CK2 when I conquered most of Britannia ( I really like making Britannia only when I own all of it so its one colour) with a strong genius martial who was nigh on unbeatable in battle died due to cancer. My realm was broken down into 4 Kingdoms that being Ireland England Wales and Scotland which all went to my 4 sons, 2 of them lost their titles immediatly due to faction demand so thats most of the work I spent an entire generation on gone because he died at age 43 to cancer. A single small event broke down my empire and I loved it because it seems like something that would've genuienly happened, as if he didn't die rebels wouldn't of stood a chance due to most of the kingdom loving him (and in my head fearing him due to his military prowess). Moment he unfortunatly passes they strike and undermine his entire lifes work. Closest I came to this in CK3 was that the wrong son inherited something he shouldn't of so i just assassinated him and got it back within a year
RIGHT before the end of my first playthrough of CK2, I had an heir in my kingdom (that I was backing, because I had laws that supported the best heir instead of just the oldest) that was set up to inherit Italy, the kingdom of Afrique, as well as the rest of my empire. The land gain was huge. I started out in Spain, I eventually conquered Andalusia due to a hugely lucky crusade that popped up. I switched my culture to Andalusian due to the light cavalry being the absolute best you can find in the immediate area. I managed to conquer all of Britain, most of France, on down to Western Africa. All the way down to Songhay, it was glorious. At the VERY LAST second, so last second that I still haven't gone back to try and go around it, another heir snapped up the election and ruined all of my plans for political expansion. I worked SO HARD to set that up, and it was snatched away so poetically that I can't really bring myself to undo it. It was the most catastrophically beautiful thing I've seen in a game, honestly. The reason I never got rid of the election process was because it unironically saved my empire when my heir unexpectedly died. I worked hard to get an heir with good traits, and he got murdered because he was a shit person. I had to scramble to find an heir, and I nearly died laughing because an heir I stashed in Scotland ended up being the answer. Dude was so middle of the pack that I couldn't justify disinheriting, but he was going to be a problem due to being unlanded. Solved it and ended up saving my empire all at once. Only fitting that what once saved my empire also ended up biting me back at the end, really.
Your commentary on the gameplay loop in CK3 was spot on to how I feel. I feel this issue with “sameness” is exactly what drives me to play total conversion mods for CK3 much more than vanilla at this point.
What annoys me to no end about CK3's UI is how massively inferior the drop down 'current situation' list is to CK2's separate and unique icons that would run across the top of the screen. They were not only easier to read at a glance but they also added character which CK3 sorely lacks.
One gripe I have with CK3 is the County, Duchy, Kingdom, and Empire icons on the map are all the same no mater what religion you are. I really like the Dragon Pagon icon and the Aztec one as well. I know this is a very minor thing, but the amount of flavor from the little things that CK2 has really had me enjoying every campaign.
For me it's being able to see unit types, it's nice to see the returns of investing in your Demesne Holdings when you raise your levies. Sure, it could be tedious trying to organise the flanks and center of an army when it came to doing so with larger stacks, but there was the roleplay of assigning my marshal to lead the center my brother or son or whoever on one of the flanks and myself on the other flank. Shit was kino, son
CK2 is amazing and the stories it tells are unmatched by CK3 in it's current form. After the king of Wales and Ireland died, I inherited just wales and it's many unruly vassals, a lot of them my spiteful younger brothers, and just one county. Meanwhile my brother inherited most of Ireland, and in a years time amassed a large army with allies all across Briton to attack me. I lost battle after battle and my kingdom was about to be subjugated. Only then my mother, which was my warring brother's vassal, succeeded in starting a faction and putting me on the throne of Ireland without fighting a battle! Needless to say the war was over and all was well, but mother would go on to convert to heresy and conquer lands herself. She somehow grew incredibly powerful, I couldn't dare go against her or make her convert. I couldn't kill my brothers and inherit their titles without incurring her wrath. She killed two of my wives and one of my daughters. She really wanted to rule the dynasty from the shadows, all the while I was dealing with constant revolts and foreign wars. But when she killed my genius son and and heir I decided enough was enough. With a very small chance of succeeding, I managed to imprison her and promptly executed her. Ever since I ruled as a tyrant over my kingdom, killed all of my remaining brothers and stole their lands. I would go on to be assassinated by my uncle, my father's brother which was also secretly bedding my mother and got mad that I killed her. Kingdoms were split again, between my daughters this time. Absolutely wild
it felt so good leading armies in CK2 the events were cool , there were duels , you could lead armies with multiple leaders , during the battle you saw the flanks going in charging and the troops and terrain mattered in battle.
Ck3 streamlined a lot of things. Some for the better and sadly some for the worse. I do for example prefer that county conversion is a progress bar instead of random chance (converting counties in ck2 was very painful). Supplies, while not perfect, are better than month-tick attrition in ck2, which lead to sometimes a single day making the difference if half your army evaporates or not. However ck3 also falls short when it comes to most of things warfare related. Men at arms the way they were implemented at launch (heard they got changed a bit, but didnt play ck3 in a while) just broke them game. The way levies become useless really quickly makes having vassals pointless, since they only contribute overpriced cannon-fodder. Feudalism was pointless in the feudalism game... why?
yeah -the supplies system in ck2 was kinda ridicolous -random chance council missions were a shit mechanic overall( the whole moral authority was kinda justifiable but also it made you basically build massive empires to get high ma for example as jewish, zunist, cathar...) -ck2 retinues and battlefield mechanic is way better than ck3
In CK2 I took the easiest start because I wanted fun while still playing ironman and for 2-3 generations I was genuinely stuck as the Kingdom of Leon and Galicia, then suddenly I had a succession crisis where my granddaughter eventually came to rule. She had bad skills and the realm was very unstable with me genuinely considering an abandonment to the run, but through perseverence I managed to stabilize the situation and she turned out to be my best ruler.
This video sums up really well my opinion about CK2 and CK3. My biggest problem with CK3 is its design philosophy. Mainly its more casual friendly approach, its lower difficulty and more predictable nature. You mentioned many things related to these in the video, I want to add some. Council jobs are really boring in CK3, I often just leave them on some default option, and even when I need them for conversion or something, their outcome is predictable, the time they take is predictable, they will basically always succeed. While in CK2 I often change where and what my councillors do and even then I could only hope that they will give me the desired outcome. The skill trees are boring as well, you just choose a focus, wait and select what perk you want to unlock, there are some events, but they are mostly forgettable. While in CK2, focuses feel like your character really dedicates their life to it, there were one long event chain dedicated to most of them and it really feel like you have to work for a lifestyle trait. Sure, there are missing features, but they might be added later, the design philosophy above will probably never change. The AI update and harm events give a bit hope that they want to make the game a bit more challenging at least. I want to add that I also modded both CK2 and CK3. CK3 is far better in this aspect than CK2. CK2 has extensive modding possibilities too, but in CK3 you can do almost anything. But I found some code parts that really reinforce this my previous statements about CK3. Characters can only get sick and start murder schemes every 5 years with fairly low chances. So like, you can't get sick at the age of 62. Also, only one AI can plot against the player at a time, there is a hard block that prevents anyone from starting a new one. If the player is childless, they get insane bonuses to fertility, meaning that they are basically guaranteed to get children if they have a spouse. There are also hard limits that prevent characters from having too many children (I think the player can bypass that), which is like 2 or 3 for landless characters. CK2 had none of that. It feels like they only wanted to create a masquerade for the player, not a somewhat realistic world. The only similar thing in CK2 is societies, there the AI doesn't do too much, most of the events and decisions related to them are almost just player only.
CK2 felt immersive in a weird way; it was less realistic with the goofy portraits, but the world felt a lot better. The events were a lot cooler as well. I'd become a modestly powerful ruler in the HRE, from glorious Ulm, but things were pretty meh. But then, my ruler felt the fear of death, and undertook a campaign to achieve immortality. And, against all odds, he succeeded. I spent the rest of maybe a couple hundred years ruling as a secluded, immortal God-King shaping the course of human history from the greatest realm in the world, Ulm. That kind of crazy stuff leaves a very noticeable hole in CK3.
CK3 lacking diseases & epidemics mechanic is so bad... And I really liked Societies from CK2. I know lifestyle choices are suppose to replace those but they feel so mechanical and repetitive. I wish CK3 added societies with lifestyle choices. Also CK3 lacking wonders from CK2 is real bummer But man, you need a better mic
I'm also seeing this "lifestyle" stuff in Bannerlord and I find it so out of place. It's a concept akin to the 20th century, from marketed consummerist culture in which the vast majority share a tedious full-time working life but can invest their scarce free time and money into "better stuff" (housing, cars) hobbies and appereance: "lifestyle". This concept couldn't have arised without the previous "life paths/ways of life" being obliterated by the Industrial Revolution, which turned most of us, poor peasants with plenty more free time and less alienation, into cogs in a machine. That's centuries away from any endyear from any CK game.
@@marcriba7581 We the workers need to rise up and seize the means of better sequel production from Paradox. We have nothing to lose but our chains that bind us to bad DLC's !
@@trancecod Yeah. I haven't tested new mechanics yet but looks like they are going to the right direction at least. Probably waiting for one new big DLC before starting new campaign
One of my most memorable video game moments of all time was in CK2 when my ruler did not have heir for some time, so the event where the court physician concocted a aphrodisiac to boost the performance was launched, usually the concoction either helps or is harmful, but in one rare occasion it was insanely powerful which prompted my ruler to attack every single woman in his court and sired children with all of them, but what killed me was that couple of months later after this the additional event launched where my ruler lost interest in women and turned gay. I lost it then. CK3 lack this character, the combat is boring, and the lack of versatility in terms of events is really discourages long campaigns which is frankly shame in CK 2 I often did early start date till 1453 runs because I knew I had to fight ever step of the way ,unless its really late game. In addition what I would welcome in CK3, more RNG events, not just debiases, but weather events and disasters like a hurricane that might sink your ships with troops, or a volcano eruption or massive flood that devastate your infrastructure, the devs are so focused on the "sim" part that they forget that the game is actually grand strategy also. Edit: would have killed them to add the CK 2 OST (with the DLC songs) to CK3, even as an add on for a buck or 2, CK2 even had the habit to play Christmas song if you played the game on Dec 25, which show fine attention to details in that game where such is lacking in CK3.
CK2's warfare surpasses that of CK3 in many aspects. Engaging in a battle for survival against a stronger enemy and the need to micromanage and preserve each levy, regardless of its size, just to raise a force that stands a chance of victory when defending a mountainous position near a river with commanders possessing suitable traits... it was always immersive and never got old for me. The feeling of triumph after a hard-fought victory and the crushing weight of defeat added to the immersion. In contrast, CK3 allows for immediate levy raising, even in vast empires where such swift mobilization would be unrealistic. Furthermore, battles in CK3 tend to be predictable ( the game even tells you ) and easily won by exploiting min-maxed levies, which diminishes the immersive and strategic elements of warfare. Maybe CK3 could add modes that allow players to choose if a mechanic is simple or complex, thus adding to immersion and flavour without losing its admittedly fair approach of simple gameplay for new players.
Ck2 >Ck3. I'm still playing Ck2 today (its more complex). CK3 is dumbed down for the more casual gamer (to each their own). But I prefer Ck2. Ck2 also has better art (ck3 events w those ugly character poses lololol😅)...I really like Ck2's battle tactics etc. Ck3s battle system boring AF, all about stacking modifiers so that 65 knights slaughter 25k+ stacks w 0 losses...Ck3 is broken.
@@glorbez Yeah, I agree, min-maxing is pretty stupid. The modifiers were handled better in ck2 because they only applied to the levies from the holding in which the building was built, and the retinues were limited, Because of this, you actually had to play the actual part of the game, handling politics and diplomacy, to manage your vassals and allies, making sure each of them is content, since just like historical monarchs of the time, you were reliant on their armies to stay in power and expand your authority.
Replayed ck2 for the past week. I had fun(and stress) all the way through. I played as one of the petty kingdom of wales to at first do a tall run as wales. Everything went well till the viking age arrived. Wessex, Mercia, Essex, and Scotland are tributaries of mine while the entirety of Ireland are angry vassals who aren't willing to fight me yet due to my military might. As my character is a prideful zealot, one must not lose his grip of Britania. He declared to himself that no viking shall live in his soil. The man fended off ambitious adventurers, and vikings for decades until a tragedy occurred. The king had perished in a battle after a duel with an enemy. Unfortunately, that enemy was his best friend, A duke from Ireland had mistaken him as an enemy and killed him. (30 prowess vs 7, somehow died...wow ck2) 5k walesmen contributed to the battle... Only 1k remained. The war ended in a white peace, but it was a total defeat for the kingdom. A princess, now queen at the age of 13 is left to fix a kingdom that hates her to the bones with nothing but money that she had inherited from her late father. The young queen is by no means a brilliant strategist like her father was. But she is shrewd and knows that money is everything. The young queen ordered a 19 year old genius strategist from the viking lands to form a mercenary band in exchange of marriage(Can't help it, he had 38 martial). This turned out well as those who dared to bare their fangs at her grip were impaled at the order of the queen. Unfortunately, the queen perished when giving birth to her first twin sons at the age of 30(She was homosexual, Almost felt like It was game over). The 1st born inherited the kingdom of Wales while the second one inherited the kingdom of Ireland. Leading to a spiral of bloody wars that would unite Britania and Scandanavia in a one empire. (Yes, marrying a random genius turned out to be great because he gave my child a claim on sweden who ruled over denmark, norway, and sweden.) There is more but I have no time on such.
One time there was an outbreak of measles in my realm. I had to close the gates to stop the spread and my whole family was locked in their castle. We slowly but surely ran out of food and eventually my Count had to eat his family members to stay alive. My playthrough didn’t even last 20 years of in game time.
I pretty much agree with everyrhing. But dificulty is by far the biggest issue of ck3. You can add ton of features but if you can just fix every problem with gold and you can build unbeatable army in 2-3 generations you have no motivation to use those features. Fixing AI would significantly improve gameplay.
3:00 that is a real shame, since it's one of the most interesting aspects of The Middle Ages: the slow forming of mature states and the centralizing power of the Monarch through the buildup of laws and institutions founded on what the Romans left behind. THAT's what Royal Court should be about.....
I always have this one memory from my first mega campaign on CK2, the story of the unfortunate Emperor Aethan. This guy became emperor almost by a divine fluke; his brother (or nephew idk) died from being a long bout of illness, then the teenage son of the guy dies in a random battle so Aethan now rules because primogeniture. Aethan’s beloved wife had died during the war and it broke him, becoming a drunk and depressive. His vassals were not receptive and he butted heads, particularly with one of the kings and tried to curb his power. It’s important to note my empire was plagued by quite literally hundreds of pretenders which meant none of these guys could rule easily. Already dealing with a potential civil war another guy attempts to usurp him. This, coupled with the other crap, finally breaks Aethan and he commits suicide, unloved and alone after 2 miserable years of rule.
I've been seeing a lot of comments on this video in 2024 debating whether my points are valid or notifying me of the upcoming Chapter III. Please recognize that this video was about comparing the games as of June 2023. I honestly can't give you input on what's changed since then, as I have not played CK3 avidly since that time. P.S. I have the time and ability to make some more videos right now, so feel free to let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like to see!
CK3 sameness issue really boils down to playstyle. If you don't change how you go about a problem you gonna have the same loop over and over. I played development/invention rush, wide dynasty (my favorite at the moment), diplomatic court and just the pure brute force playstyle. Every game felt different and had a different set of challenges to solve. To be fair these were all multiplayer games and alot of fun came from the interaction too but the game loop was also an important part. For example the wide dynasty playstyle was just extremly funny. I just spread my dynasty on as many thrones as possible and stayed a duke for most of the game until I made the archduchy of austria via decision. The problem CK3 has in my opinion is more that you are not enough incentivized to change it up, while in CK2 you needed every trick in the book only to survive so you look every game how to overcome your challenges and find new strategies to do so
Top 3 things I miss: 1. Wiki links and overall historical information. (so easy to implement, wtf) 2. Sounds when clicking on things; all the UI clicking soundsi n CK3 are the exact same. 3. Death sounds.
Lately I've finally gotten close to finishing my restoring rome campaign(starting in beneveto italy)in CK2 and converting the entire realm to Hellenism via the secret factions was a slog, it took me 5 tries and on my final attempt the whole realm callapsed in Anatolia early on and the catholics invaded greace at the same time. So my line fought and saved the empire regaining all the territory lost. Now that my line finally received the title pontificus maximus after reforming the hellenic faith and restoring rome, i feel like I've earned it!
In my current CK2 campaign a character of mine I called 'The Chosen One', a strong genius, was faced with an uprising so big it wiped out all of my savings (I barely achieved White Peace), since I had to hire many mercenary companies despite my large armies, and he was assassinated after two years of rule. His son then died of the Black Plague, wiping out my main line of Carolingian rulers. One of my best rulers in this run actually had the trait 'dull' and I had little hope for him, when he ascended the throne.
Yes, and the issue with tailoring UI for ease of access and new players is that it lacks the sort of longevity you want in a game that’s expected to be played for hundreds or even thousands of hours.
I'm quite new to ck2 only first playing it in like 2022 or something when it became free. But I love the different scenarios and things you can do. I reformed Rome, conquered nearly the entire Balkans as a viking and converted constantinople to Norse. I created viking hispania. Reformed the Persian empire as a zoroastrian. Really love the game. You can actually go out and do whatever you want without the game becoming overcomplicated.
societies! really hate how those are completely lacking in ck3. but also miss the stories that just unfolded in that game without almost any effort by the player. I will never forget when my empress of Hispania took the throne at 15 and joined the benedict order and became so virtous that by the time she died at 30 something from disease she had become a saint. ended up naming a grand cathedral after her. i find i forget my characters in ck3 pretty quick
One thing i fail to understand about CK3 and it boggles my mind is that they had the PERFECT ocassion to introduce Artists in the game with the artefact mechanics and they didn't. Like paintings, portraits of rulers, sculptures, crazy inventors, alchemists coming to your court asking for sponsorship and when they finished the work you could put that artefacts in your court. How awesome would it have been after 3 or so generation to still have the portrait of your grea-great grandfather into your throne room? Instead we have the bland events for swords, generic jewelry or tapestries that get repeated over and over again, its like they took tye most boring parts of crafting and put it in the game instead of the more exciting stuff.
despite not playing ck3 i can agree that ck2 is a big challenge i once played as the last carolingian ruler and i managed to claw my way up after 3 or 4 rulers to the position of french king and into francian emperor after that best run ive had aside from my AtE California and my umayyad 769 resurgence runs
CK2 wasn't perfect, but it was really, really good. Also, as part of its long life, playing the game felt very different at different points in time. I feel like CK3 expects you to shape your own lore or experience, with how much influence you have over your culture and your religion. In CK2 it was at times a struggle to even change from one religion to the other if you wanted to, not to mention that there were only a finite number of religions to choose from. I remember so many games I played in CK2, like when I started as William the Conqueror in an early version, or lucking my way into becoming the Emperor of the ERE through marriage and murder, or being an evil demon worshiper who used dark arts to get rid of my enemies. I once tried to unite the Rurikovich realms via seniority succession and was cursed for my landgrab by having absolutely unfit, inadequate old men as my heirs and eventual player characters. CK3 doesn't tell these stories, at least not to the level the previous game would.
I'm very much in the same boat as you at the moment. Some things are better in CK3: the feudal obligation system, the dynamic culture- and religion system, the Stress system is good if a little clunky, the multiplayer is more fun and stable, the Tours & Tournaments features are great, separating friendly and hostile schemes is a good change. But yes, I agree that CK2 is still overall the better and more replayable game. There are way more flavour events, and the game throws you way more curveballs which keeps every playthrough much more unique. And yes, what you mention at the end is probably my main gripe with CK3: characters don't change. Crusader Kings is primarily a role-playing game that is focused on its characters, and yet in CK3, none of them are unique. The very predictable Lifestyle system, the same for every ruler, just makes it so that you will become great at whatever you focus on, especially with the huge amount of genius/beautiful characters. It also doesn't feel organic at all: in CK2, if you started executing people, you could become Cruel. If you focused on Martial, you could become Brawny. If you joined a monastic order, you would become Humble and lose Lustful/Gluttonous. In CK3, none of that happens. If you focus on Martial, you just get better at Martial. Your character doesn't change. It's a shame, because the Stress system does leave a lot of room for that. The timed claims system doesn't help: the whole point of this game is marrying your way up, the way a real medieval ruler would do it. Just putting your Court Chaplain (why him, btw? Why not your Chancellor?) in a province and waiting for the inevitable claim just makes this feel too much like an EU4-style map painter. I'm also really not a fan of the UI. It looks pretty at first glance, but it manages to cover so much of the screen while actually hiding some of the most important information multiple clicks deep. Very important notifications are buried among irrelevant ones in the big number on the top, and the huge list of notifications on the bottom right. Crown Authority and the Regency system are very easy to miss, in fact it took me many hours before I even noticed them. The actual tasks of your councilors are tiny icons next to an enormous portrait of them, when it should be the other way around. The character finder is buried under a few dots on the bottom right. Character modifier icons are tiny. Trait icons are too 'busy' and overdesigned: even after ~80 hours I don't have an intuitive idea which trait is which from a first glance. Your family tree, one of the most important screens in the game, is hidden behind several clicks, and even then, to get an overview of the entire thing requires multiple additional clicks. And for a game which focused so much on getting a pretty terrain map, getting the actual terrain information is not intuitive at all, and it comes at the cost of a clear political map. You touched on it, but I agree that it doesn't make sense just how much income you lose at a change in rulership. I've generally found it very difficult to get a good feeling for why I'm earning as much or as little as I do. Warfare is also quite annoying in CK3. Without an 'attach allies to army' button, you just kind of have to hope that your AI allies will follow you, and while the army AI is a lot better than CK2, sieging and countersieging can feel like a game of whack-a-mole which extends wars unnecessarily. Plus, you better have enough Trebuchets! Up until Tours & Tournaments, I really wasn't very hopeful about CK3. But that expansion changed my outlook to a much more positive one. This game still has a lot of potential: it just needs much more love and polish. The overview of the two timelines you showed was very indicative of that. CK2 had so many DLCs that added so much to the game, just one after the other in rapid succession, and for a price that was less than half of the average CK3 DLC price. Meanwhile for CK3 the only major DLC we had for a long time was Royal Court, and it was basically just a standalone gimmick, for double or triple the price of game-changing DLC like Old Gods or Sword of Islam.
The problem with CK3 was said within the first 4 min. The game experience does not feel unique. The only DLC which comes close was the vikings DLC as it makes playing viking a bit more unique, until you become feudal. Then it's the same rodeo again and again again...
There's plenty of issues with CK3 but if I could get them to focus on something it would be to make the game substantially harder. While it wouldn't fix the other issues, I think you'd notice them a lot less if there were serious challenges you could get invested in solving. Like you touched on, the feeling of accomplishment overcoming a difficult situation is a big part of what makes CK stories engaging and memorable. I feel like pretty much all my time in CK3 is spent with my brain basically turned off, because the game never pushes me to actually engage with it beyond a surface level. Just as a little example the other day I did the "Kings to the Seventh Generation" achievement. It's classified as hard but literally all I had to do was win a couple easy wars then used "claim throne" on the king. Cherry on top is that even though he was almost done crushing an independence war the dude just gave in to me without a fight, even though my faction was only at ~70% support.
I’ve played both, CK2 after CK3, CK3 is more RP focused and already has most of CK2s best mods like ATE and AGOT which are even more fun with CK3. And they have a Crusader wars mod which combines Attila Total war 1212 AD mod with CK3, so the modding community is definitely better which means there’s a lot of potential within the game
One major issue I have with CK3 is the art style. It looks too much like a generic mobile game with its characterless, monochrome UI and Sims 4-esque graphics. It just lacks that medieval feel that CK2 has and really sucks you out of the experience.
Agree with the content of the vide, and glad you address the poor mic in the description. One other note is your points would be MUCH clearer if you the video shown to the game you were currently talking about. If you were comparing CK2 to God Of War, points would be obvious, but CK2 n CK3 are so similar I feel this optical defined line would provide clarity as you spoke, cheers.
Definitely the lack of flavor between culture annoys me, but with more DLC it could be fixed. What also annoys me, and unfortunately I don't know if it's fixable, is character progression giving you 'magic' 'arcady' traits that give you for example claims without having to work for them.
#55 Really like how you articulated the differences between the two games. Have found CK3 a bit more hollow but looks good. CK2 with its expansive dlc is a truly great game. The features you mention will all come, in the next few years through 100's of dollars of DLC.
CK3 is one of my most played games on steam and easily in my top 10 favorite games, but I’ve never played CK2. This vid really showed what I was missing. Idk if I’ll like it as much but I’m def checking it out.
CK2 is quite easy. All you have to do is to have as few vassals as possible, they are always at 100 happiness from all the land and titles you give them and give you max tax and max levies, allowing you to steamroll the competition.
Talking about a game that had an 8 year lifespan vs that of less than a 3 year lifespan that has got many more people enjoying paradox games. CK2 still exists and nothing is stopping anyone going back to play it. That all sounds win/win to me.
In the elder scrolls mod, I opted to play a Vampire Necromancer. Suffice it to say, that was something very much difficult and it felt harder than the CK 2 counter-part. So when I ended up taking over and becoming King, I was on a very wobbly house of cards. And it was this way the entire way as long as I remained the same religion. Even with Max Dread, stuff was sensitive. But this was a very narrow circumstance.
I really miss supernatural events. Also i miss plagues, that were just added and I didn't play with them yet. Great projects. I really loved them. Don't know why, but by building them you could literally go down in history. There could be so much interesting ideas of representing great projects in CK3, i don't understand why are they not adding them to the game
In ck2 I had a daughter, after her birth my King of England got a vision of the great things she would go on to do, thousands of men bowing to her knees and great conquests. Suffice to say these things happened, after a Crusade she would be put on the throne of a now weak and angry egyptian kingdom. She would engage in multiple duels and quell many rebellions until she had gained control and was a powerful empress, unfortunately her husband which she had been forced to marry had other plans. The Empress was planning on bribing the catholic church to divorce him and have children of her own dynasty through matrilineal marriage, unfortunately after the birth of her first son (Which was of her husband's dynasty) she would then be kidnapped and killed by her husband. And that all happened just through basic gameplay. In CK3 to get a cool story it feels like you really have to WANT a good story and have to imagine stuff which isn't happening in game, you gotta force it. Anyway really good vid, underrated to say the least. Will be subscribing.
I think the only criticism i have a gripe with in this video is the UI, i think CK3s' is undeniably better and after hours and hours of playing CK2 the sounds just get insanely annoying, especially when you quickly click between menus and the they start overlapping, i wish they had gone all out with the paper/medieval theme for the UI in CK3 tbh
4:23 Is exactly how I feel about CK3 too. The only way to enjoy the game somewhat is to put up artificial limitations on yourself, which provides some challenge but also takes out immersion. I love "deathwars" in EU4, you feel constantly challenged militarily and economically early game with smaller powers. The tip of the Sword of Damocles is on your throat, ready to fall (creating tension, immersion, creative strategies). The AI in CK3 doesn't feel like it could actually weave a plausible historical tapestry of rise and fall. It mostly just sits there or does or or two major pushes. Mostly you don't need to cheese CK3 at all, it's not worth the effort to come up with any interesting strategy once you know the basics (build it and they will x). Past 70 years you are always completely unstoppable, stable and with nothing more to do.
It's fun starting small and working your way up to forging your own empire, I usually don't play alot past that cause it seems at that point its just babysitting trying to keep dejure intact etc it's still a blast and you can learn about different cultures and real kingdoms.
Yea im gonna start ck2. But can someone answer this question. Is it like the other paradox games where you need 20+ dlcs before the game is any good and if so, what dlc should i prioritise?
CK3 needs way more criticism. crticizing that game gets you banned on their offical discord by a guy named trynnex. Same on the steam forums. i'm not a hater i just want the game to improve, and they delete and perscute me all the time. You need to reupload this at a slower talking speed and with a sound fix. We need more people to speak up.
CK2 is definitely a lot harder than CK3 but that isn't saying much in itself. Catholics (the largest religion in 1066 and the most flavourful and mechanically developed) have a trivially easy time making god-tier rulers as Catholic societies let you collect every virtue and other great traits with ease, while Crusades provide even relatively weak rulers a way of getting artifacts, prestige, great traits, and 10k+ gold by sieging a few provinces and fighting in a couple of curbstomp battles. In one Latin Empire campaign I had a succession of 5 rulers and 3 were made saints with the other 2 canonised. Islamic rulers can groom the best and most powerful heirs and councilors possible and never have to worry about realm splitting despite massive families. Norse rulers get infinite money from raiding and free claims on anyone they like. And let's not forget that due to how bonuses from cultural buildings are calculated it's possible to make your retinues several times stronger than normal levies and instantly disintegrate armies 10 times their size with almost no casualties. The list goes on!
The great thing about ck2 is that victory wasn't inevitable. Was playing as charlemagne and tried to do that leet strat where you marry irene and get elected byzantine emperor. Well I did, but then I contracted cancer and died when my son was only 2. Since the electors wouldn't vote for an infant I only had the duchy of thrace. An independence faction fired so i pressed my claim but the revolt leader got imprisoned. the realm came back and i got absolutely wallopped, title revoked, game over. From the biggest empire since rome to nothing just like that!
I always love the moments in ck2 where your character just decides to loose their brain because they fought in a close battle. Or those multiple times i was forces to play a 5 year old kid and my regent decided he wanted more money, so you need to change the spy master to someone that is capable of defending my people but loyal enough that he doesn't kill your ass. Also many times you are forced to do horrible things, like remove someone because they are going to use any chance they have to kill you or take over everything you have.
10:37 CK2 dlcs were absolutely better compared to CK3 dlcs. Even stuff like Res Publica which was probably one of the less interesting ones was actually quite developed with how tradeposts and Republics worked. And it was fun to play the Republics from time to time. But CK3 dlcs have way too little content to justify their price. Like every single feature in Tournaments and whatever should have been part of the Royal Court for example, because it is all the stuff that ties into what the monarch would be dealing with on at daily basis. It really feels like they cut a single dlc into two, but didn't fill either with a significant amount of content.
even though it sounds like your mic was inside a cup, i still enjoyed this video and the points you made :)
I miss the art in ck2 events. In ck2 each event had a painting made by an artist and usually they were amazing, meanwhile, ck3 has your character making a weird face over an obscured and often generic background.
That’s a great point.
@@Omniburg there still is amazing and creative pieces of artwork though. Plus 3d models are a form of art still, it looks really nice in the Royal court imo.
@@lobear3074 no it doesnt
@@isaacshultz8128 ok, your opinion is fine, but it’s not an objective statement, given there are a lot who like it
@@isaacshultz8128 The 3d art is ugly.
CK2 feels as if you're creating history, whereas CK3 feels more of playing a simulation game. I think this is apparent with the 2D portraits in CK2, because the portraits feels along the lines of iconography moreso than a portrait.
Great point!
Ck3 - Babysitting a character
Ck2 - Roleplaying
@@Omniburg no its not lol
right, portraits are better then portraits, thats exactly the type of argument CK2 fans will pat themselfs on the back with lmao
@@davidcohen4518 what?
In CK2 I was once a weak and cowardly Norse, but fighting years in wars and duels I became strong, brave, cruel may seem noble but I cheated in many of these duels, I united Norway, I killed Ragnar in duel was a magical campaign. 12 hours of play feels like minutes in ck2 and that I don't feel in ck3
The very same. Had a Venetian house who started off as pretty benevolent, working our way to the top through trade - but by the end had become domineering satanists who wrung the state for wealth. As the republic grew we fought uphill to retain the would-be-breakoff-states and some of my most famous Doges were the ones who dumped all republican virtue to become battle-scarred torturers who murdered anyone that stood in their way.
Some great stories from AtE and AGoT mods with all the added dlc details as well - what a game man! 😢
I was still a noob, but I had played quite a hundred few hours at the time in non-ironman games, frankly using cheats almost every 50 years because I just wasn't good at the game... but finally, one day, I decided to change that. Played my first Ironman game in the new Iron Century start date - it went uh... in the wrong direction (I ended up making Capets Kings of Arles/Burgundy instead of France and was too late to press my claim on France... Arles was Gavelkind, some civil wars later I gave up and the rest is history)
Then, I started again (still as the Capets) fresh and went for the Kingdom of West Francia (I wanted to catch that early-game Primogeniture and insure my heirs' for good)... it genuinely was my best game ever. Felt so real, like I was truly ruling like a real French dynasty desperate to maintain power against the constant rebellions after every succession. I built Francia, expanded to Mali and Libya (I also ruled Hispania at the time) and rivaled the Holy Roman Empire... before everything broke down 247 years down the line
I had fought many rebellions, crushed so many of them, and relied on so many tricks and methods (i.e. dropping half of my troop count on top of the capital county of my most rebellious vassal knowing a revolt was coming soon) to stay on top. I somehow even ruled with a subpar heir (making him somehow, magically, a miracle king who crushed three rebellions and cemented his rule with bad skills)... I was prepared for most chicanery. But the one thing I never forsaw was my ruler living above 67, his first son dieing young (my grandson from him becoming my heir as per Primogeniture) and me dieing shortly after, playing as a boy king and immediately suffering 3 separate rebellions at once (most I ever did before were _2_ rebellions at the same time...)
It was too much... I caved twice, lost everything until I was just a few counties including Paris... *and the Emperor of Francia* _(my 3rd removed cousin)_ *asked me for Paris* (coz the AI is hard-coded to want the capital county of their primary title) and I gave up then. Literally nothing to my character's name, locked to Gavelkind after fighting so hard to steal an early Primogeniture and about to lose my richest, most developed county... I finally stopped. Counted my blessings and saw the achievements... felt so proud of myself
It was a good game. Never ever had that feeling playing any game run in CK3. Don't know if it'll ever happen again... and for the record, that CK2 game I played was with _zero_ DLCs (I was a kid with shit allowance), I tell you back then Primogeniture was _impossible_ to get
one thing i really liked about ck2 was you actually had to manage marriages for claims and expansion planning several generations in advance
in ck3 you get every claim you could want in just a few months
Yeah it seemed like if you were a nobody count, there was barely any chance to fabricate claims, it seemed realistic. Now you can start as count and either the Pope randomly offers you huge duchies randomly within a few years or you can fabricate claims with 100% success chance on anything from counties to entire kingdom titles lol
I started playing ck3 like this and honestly it makes the game so much better in my opinion, it actually makes you feel like you earned that county and have a legal right to it
Thats because it has been dumbed down, just like Victoria 3.
@@countspider6488 yeah but in my opinion it should atleast have a penalty, I’ve seen mods that put prestige and faith penalties to it and makes the game much more difficult, apart you will be more patient with the probability of a duchy claim which will be worth it
I’ve never actually played ck3 but I have quite a few hours of playtime in ck2. In ck2 you really have to plan everything for the claims. Ireland has always been my favorite place since you really need to put in effort and you really feel like it was worth it.
The CK2 levy system was far superior and much more authentic than that of CK3. That you had to raise levies from their respective regions and actually gather an army, as opposed to just teleporting all 40 thousand available men from Thrace to Iran, created situations in which you could have a local army take care of bandits, or where smaller kingdoms, who could quickly consolidate their forces, had an advantage over larger empires, which required weeks to gather their deathstacks from all over their realm.
Among a host of other differences, the change to the levy system is my biggest gripe with CK3.
I agree. I think the supply system is also a letdown. It dumbs down attrition severly , and disease somehow only exists in hostile provinces during war. Meanwhile, you can move 20-30k through your entire country without losing a man because you have 100 units of supplies. The game overall suffers from the same issue HOI4 does, its been dumbed down for the sake of newer players.
I miss those times
that not true at all, you can get a whole army at once in ck2, you only have to assemble them if you own the provinces yourself, this was done to force the player to use vassals.
bro didint have the dlc probably@@Vitorruy1
@@Vitorruy1tbf using an ubber strong vassal to instantly pop a death stack anywhere becomes quickly necessary (retenues aside especially without the DLC) when your empire spans all of Asia and Africa, i had that one Bavandid Zoroastrian Persia game where you NEED the instant 50k levies on any given front because you have 100% menace constantly lol. Otherwise if you use the regular levy all vassals armies on their capital its honestly fine in early and mid game in CK2 while the levy system in CK3 is just meh overall
Things I miss from CK2
- Trade Republics, you can play them.
- the vassal screen where you can see list them by opinion.
- the vassal tree where you can eyeball how many troops you'll face.
I figure trade republics are coming..ljust a $$$ squeeze by Paradox later. CK2 did not start with them…
But you have vassal list in CK3 as well🤔
You have a vassal list in CK3, and a vassal tree is not necessary you dont need to know every detail in the game it just makes the game easier
you can see Vassals in Realms tab, the one that opens when you press F2. The vassal mapmode also still exists
@leemills6825you could play any gov apart from theocracy (so.. Pope etc) in CK2
Good video! For me CK2 always had a very 'Arthurian' vibe, with all the supernatural things that can happen. I really miss that in CK3.
I agree! I didn’t really talk about it in the video, but I did really like the little bits of supernatural events in CK2.
I also imagine that some of them aren’t magic, but are instead considered magic by your character, the same way that the possessed trait is realistically a character with mental illness but the world sees that character as possessed.
That's a good point in general. Not only in the supernatural aspects, but CK2 has a very different vibe. As Omniburg said, more regal. CK2 is 'The Name of the Rose', while CK3 is more like 'A Knights Tale'.
Well aKsHuLly... (sorry!)
The 'Arthurian' time period was earlier than the setting of CK2.
@@butterfacemcgillicutty yeah no shit, they mean that the story of arthur is famous for a literary style that is often using real life events but adds mythological elements to them. Like a lot of other christian saints where molded into these ancient heroes who fought dragons and saved people from evil. Arthurian means in this context the style of the story, not the story itself...
@@Omniburg Maybe magic, maybe mundane is an important thing to get the historical vibe, and it needs to "yes it's magic" just often enough to get the player in the mindset.
Like the immortality quest is amazing for this, even if you have the stats to pull it off, there's a 7/8 chance you rolled a false mentor at quest start, that's absolutely perfect.
Where in CK3 every witch is NOT capable of cursing me, if 1 in 8 witches were that'd be scary.
I love how in CK2 you could go on drastically different paths in your life, not just choose between different event chains like the CK3 lifestyle system. You can be the realm builder guy and develop your realm's economy; you can become a scion of a monastic order, sponsoring the faith and become beatified or canonised after you die; you can be an alchemist and philosopher, and write a magnum opus; you can even dedicate an entire playthrough to bringing forth the arrival of THE LITERAL ANTICHRIST and become the spawn of Satan yourself.
I really do miss supernatural events from CK2.
I had a rurikid russia run in ck2 (ironman) campaign and have never had such a cool experience in ck3. I conquered all the way south, and it WAS HARD keeping the realm together, made it all orthodox, then one of my characters became a canonized saint, leading to the bloodline being blessed, but BEFORE all that, the PLAGUE swept through my lands and I barely survived, my entire court alongside most my family were killed by it and there was a severe power vacuum in my realm, which would cause a chain reaction into the successors for a civil war. I also joined a crusade once, don't know how, I just did. We failed.
That's also a great thing about CK2 aswell. Sometimes you do something so interesting you have no idea how you did it you just did
I love the rurikids
One of my favourite mechanics in Ck3 is dread system. It is a way to play as a ruthless tyrant without getting deposed in seconds and I really missed the feature like that when I was playing ck2. But I agree with most of what you said in the video. it feels like in ck2 you need to go through generations of overcoming challenges, obstacles and planning to achieve aomething great while in ck3 you can do this in the lifespan of a single character and from that moment you'll snowball and become only stronger without any challenge.
I agree! Dread is certainly a great system which is sorely missed whenever playing CK2. And thanks!
In ck3, the story advances the grand strategy
In ck2, the grand strategy advances the story
A point about the traits in CK2 being so much harder to get than in CK3 is that in CK2 when you get one of those characters crazy traits you really notice it. My favorite campaign in CK2 was Habsburg-ish campagin where I tried to get the borders of Austro-Hungary rather than go for the HRE. It was a normal campagin for 200 years, taking opportunistic wars against my neighbors, marrying strategically, assasinating unruly lords, etc, slowly forming the kingdoms I wanted and increasing my authority.
Suddenly I have a daughter who's possessed. She's the 4th of six, but by the end of it, she's killed off all her siblings. Not wanting to lose the Emperorship, I allow female rulers (hows that for historical?) and she takes the throne, and she turns out to be an absolute beast! She's cruel, she's beautiful, and the devil himself is on her side. She has insane martial skill and manages to wreck havoc on the remaining mongols, she massively expands the borders southwards into the balkans, and mercilessly imprisons, banishes, and kills any lord who even looks at her sidewise. The absolute ruler has crushed all her enemies outside and within, accomplishing more in a lifetime than all her predecessors had done for two centuries.
And then... the crusades happened.
Turns out that when a massive satanic empire gobbles upeverything overnight, the rest of the world notices, and puts up a fight. Suddenly I'm facing holy wars from the catholics, the slavics, and mongols decide to jump in aswell. In a final last stand against the catholics, Satan claims her soul, and she dies in battle! The empire is torn apart and what is left shatters. The balkans, hungarians and czechs break free from the empire, and the lords lower the crowns authority with impunity. I was back to square one, only having the kingdom of Austria to my name, and a couple random holdings scattered throughout the former realm.
I'd never had anything like this happen before or since, and it really shows all the things you've highlighted in this video. In CK2 you don't normally find yourself as a superhuman steamrolling the rest of the world, and when you do, the AI puts up a fight and is even comptetent enough to stop you.
CK3 never really managed to give me that rush again, so I've always thought CK2 to be the better game.
Nothing changes over time in CK3 (this is part of the lack of flavor you mentioned). I have only ever gone to 1453 once for the achievement, and it was a slog. 1400 felt no different than 1066. My campaign felt pretty much complete by 1200. Sure the armies get bigger, and your gold goes up, but what does that change for gameplay? Laws and The Black Death would improve this dramatically and are my #1 and #2 hoped for features.
I'm stoked for the new Legacy of Persia flavor pack. I hope it's more like Northern Lords than the Fate of Iberia.
so how is legacy of persia? I never played vikings coz i dont give a shit and i dont have the persia dlc
Good News: We now have the Black Death with the newest DLC, Legends of the Dead.
I liked how fluidly the transition from ck2 to eu4 was when playing mega campaigns. You could really feel the differences in eras between the darker and more foreboding dark ages and it’s transition to a more hopeful renaissance era. I think the soundtrack also complimented this and the art style helped cement the game as a different period of time, just as eu4 illustrates the renaissance and Vic 2s art portrayed an industrial world.
CK2 will always be more fun because of the genuine danger you can face to your playthrough. My favourite example is in CK2 when I conquered most of Britannia ( I really like making Britannia only when I own all of it so its one colour) with a strong genius martial who was nigh on unbeatable in battle died due to cancer. My realm was broken down into 4 Kingdoms that being Ireland England Wales and Scotland which all went to my 4 sons, 2 of them lost their titles immediatly due to faction demand so thats most of the work I spent an entire generation on gone because he died at age 43 to cancer. A single small event broke down my empire and I loved it because it seems like something that would've genuienly happened, as if he didn't die rebels wouldn't of stood a chance due to most of the kingdom loving him (and in my head fearing him due to his military prowess). Moment he unfortunatly passes they strike and undermine his entire lifes work.
Closest I came to this in CK3 was that the wrong son inherited something he shouldn't of so i just assassinated him and got it back within a year
RIGHT before the end of my first playthrough of CK2, I had an heir in my kingdom (that I was backing, because I had laws that supported the best heir instead of just the oldest) that was set up to inherit Italy, the kingdom of Afrique, as well as the rest of my empire. The land gain was huge. I started out in Spain, I eventually conquered Andalusia due to a hugely lucky crusade that popped up. I switched my culture to Andalusian due to the light cavalry being the absolute best you can find in the immediate area. I managed to conquer all of Britain, most of France, on down to Western Africa. All the way down to Songhay, it was glorious. At the VERY LAST second, so last second that I still haven't gone back to try and go around it, another heir snapped up the election and ruined all of my plans for political expansion. I worked SO HARD to set that up, and it was snatched away so poetically that I can't really bring myself to undo it. It was the most catastrophically beautiful thing I've seen in a game, honestly.
The reason I never got rid of the election process was because it unironically saved my empire when my heir unexpectedly died. I worked hard to get an heir with good traits, and he got murdered because he was a shit person. I had to scramble to find an heir, and I nearly died laughing because an heir I stashed in Scotland ended up being the answer. Dude was so middle of the pack that I couldn't justify disinheriting, but he was going to be a problem due to being unlanded. Solved it and ended up saving my empire all at once. Only fitting that what once saved my empire also ended up biting me back at the end, really.
I respect the fact that, just like CK2 released in 2012, so did your mic
i mean i agree with what he says but releasing a video like this WILL give legitimacy to the ck3 fanboys.
I'd pay a thousand dollars for a version of C2 with the CK3 visuals.
Your commentary on the gameplay loop in CK3 was spot on to how I feel. I feel this issue with “sameness” is exactly what drives me to play total conversion mods for CK3 much more than vanilla at this point.
What annoys me to no end about CK3's UI is how massively inferior the drop down 'current situation' list is to CK2's separate and unique icons that would run across the top of the screen. They were not only easier to read at a glance but they also added character which CK3 sorely lacks.
It's even worse for Victoria 3. CK2 and EU4 were the prime of PDX UIs.
Disagree, Ck2’s UI is shit
@@Tortellobello45 CK2's UI is shit but CK3's UI is simplified shit
Ck2 ui is what stops me playing, it's a chore to navigate
@@PrimeNPCgit gud, the ck2 ui is fine, and also has a way better aesthetic
One gripe I have with CK3 is the County, Duchy, Kingdom, and Empire icons on the map are all the same no mater what religion you are. I really like the Dragon Pagon icon and the Aztec one as well. I know this is a very minor thing, but the amount of flavor from the little things that CK2 has really had me enjoying every campaign.
For me it's being able to see unit types, it's nice to see the returns of investing in your Demesne Holdings when you raise your levies. Sure, it could be tedious trying to organise the flanks and center of an army when it came to doing so with larger stacks, but there was the roleplay of assigning my marshal to lead the center my brother or son or whoever on one of the flanks and myself on the other flank. Shit was kino, son
CK2 is amazing and the stories it tells are unmatched by CK3 in it's current form.
After the king of Wales and Ireland died, I inherited just wales and it's many unruly vassals, a lot of them my spiteful younger brothers, and just one county. Meanwhile my brother inherited most of Ireland, and in a years time amassed a large army with allies all across Briton to attack me. I lost battle after battle and my kingdom was about to be subjugated. Only then my mother, which was my warring brother's vassal, succeeded in starting a faction and putting me on the throne of Ireland without fighting a battle!
Needless to say the war was over and all was well, but mother would go on to convert to heresy and conquer lands herself. She somehow grew incredibly powerful, I couldn't dare go against her or make her convert. I couldn't kill my brothers and inherit their titles without incurring her wrath. She killed two of my wives and one of my daughters. She really wanted to rule the dynasty from the shadows, all the while I was dealing with constant revolts and foreign wars.
But when she killed my genius son and and heir I decided enough was enough. With a very small chance of succeeding, I managed to imprison her and promptly executed her. Ever since I ruled as a tyrant over my kingdom, killed all of my remaining brothers and stole their lands. I would go on to be assassinated by my uncle, my father's brother which was also secretly bedding my mother and got mad that I killed her. Kingdoms were split again, between my daughters this time. Absolutely wild
Well documented review. I could not agree more.
it felt so good leading armies in CK2 the events were cool , there were duels , you could lead armies with multiple leaders , during the battle you saw the flanks going in charging and the troops and terrain mattered in battle.
Ck3 streamlined a lot of things. Some for the better and sadly some for the worse. I do for example prefer that county conversion is a progress bar instead of random chance (converting counties in ck2 was very painful). Supplies, while not perfect, are better than month-tick attrition in ck2, which lead to sometimes a single day making the difference if half your army evaporates or not.
However ck3 also falls short when it comes to most of things warfare related. Men at arms the way they were implemented at launch (heard they got changed a bit, but didnt play ck3 in a while) just broke them game. The way levies become useless really quickly makes having vassals pointless, since they only contribute overpriced cannon-fodder. Feudalism was pointless in the feudalism game... why?
yeah
-the supplies system in ck2 was kinda ridicolous
-random chance council missions were a shit mechanic overall( the whole moral authority was kinda justifiable but also it made you basically build massive empires to get high ma for example as jewish, zunist, cathar...)
-ck2 retinues and battlefield mechanic is way better than ck3
You just made me download ck2 after not playing it for 5 years at least. Thank you!
In CK2 I took the easiest start because I wanted fun while still playing ironman and for 2-3 generations I was genuinely stuck as the Kingdom of Leon and Galicia, then suddenly I had a succession crisis where my granddaughter eventually came to rule. She had bad skills and the realm was very unstable with me genuinely considering an abandonment to the run, but through perseverence I managed to stabilize the situation and she turned out to be my best ruler.
This video sums up really well my opinion about CK2 and CK3. My biggest problem with CK3 is its design philosophy. Mainly its more casual friendly approach, its lower difficulty and more predictable nature. You mentioned many things related to these in the video, I want to add some. Council jobs are really boring in CK3, I often just leave them on some default option, and even when I need them for conversion or something, their outcome is predictable, the time they take is predictable, they will basically always succeed. While in CK2 I often change where and what my councillors do and even then I could only hope that they will give me the desired outcome. The skill trees are boring as well, you just choose a focus, wait and select what perk you want to unlock, there are some events, but they are mostly forgettable. While in CK2, focuses feel like your character really dedicates their life to it, there were one long event chain dedicated to most of them and it really feel like you have to work for a lifestyle trait. Sure, there are missing features, but they might be added later, the design philosophy above will probably never change. The AI update and harm events give a bit hope that they want to make the game a bit more challenging at least.
I want to add that I also modded both CK2 and CK3. CK3 is far better in this aspect than CK2. CK2 has extensive modding possibilities too, but in CK3 you can do almost anything. But I found some code parts that really reinforce this my previous statements about CK3. Characters can only get sick and start murder schemes every 5 years with fairly low chances. So like, you can't get sick at the age of 62. Also, only one AI can plot against the player at a time, there is a hard block that prevents anyone from starting a new one. If the player is childless, they get insane bonuses to fertility, meaning that they are basically guaranteed to get children if they have a spouse. There are also hard limits that prevent characters from having too many children (I think the player can bypass that), which is like 2 or 3 for landless characters. CK2 had none of that. It feels like they only wanted to create a masquerade for the player, not a somewhat realistic world. The only similar thing in CK2 is societies, there the AI doesn't do too much, most of the events and decisions related to them are almost just player only.
CK2 felt immersive in a weird way; it was less realistic with the goofy portraits, but the world felt a lot better. The events were a lot cooler as well.
I'd become a modestly powerful ruler in the HRE, from glorious Ulm, but things were pretty meh. But then, my ruler felt the fear of death, and undertook a campaign to achieve immortality. And, against all odds, he succeeded.
I spent the rest of maybe a couple hundred years ruling as a secluded, immortal God-King shaping the course of human history from the greatest realm in the world, Ulm. That kind of crazy stuff leaves a very noticeable hole in CK3.
CK3 lacking diseases & epidemics mechanic is so bad... And I really liked Societies from CK2. I know lifestyle choices are suppose to replace those but they feel so mechanical and repetitive. I wish CK3 added societies with lifestyle choices. Also CK3 lacking wonders from CK2 is real bummer
But man, you need a better mic
I'm also seeing this "lifestyle" stuff in Bannerlord and I find it so out of place. It's a concept akin to the 20th century, from marketed consummerist culture in which the vast majority share a tedious full-time working life but can invest their scarce free time and money into "better stuff" (housing, cars) hobbies and appereance: "lifestyle".
This concept couldn't have arised without the previous "life paths/ways of life" being obliterated by the Industrial Revolution, which turned most of us, poor peasants with plenty more free time and less alienation, into cogs in a machine. That's centuries away from any endyear from any CK game.
@@marcriba7581 We the workers need to rise up and seize the means of better sequel production from Paradox. We have nothing to lose but our chains that bind us to bad DLC's !
you have diseases and epidemics now and still the game has the same problem (in my eyes)
@@trancecod Yeah. I haven't tested new mechanics yet but looks like they are going to the right direction at least. Probably waiting for one new big DLC before starting new campaign
@@coffeesmug3406 i kinda feel it doesn't.. but that's just my taste
I am just gonna say it, due to the sheer smoothness and hyper developed character life, CK2 is my go to game if I'm ever making a massive mod.
One of my most memorable video game moments of all time was in CK2 when my ruler did not have heir for some time, so the event where the court physician concocted a aphrodisiac to boost the performance was launched, usually the concoction either helps or is harmful, but in one rare occasion it was insanely powerful which prompted my ruler to attack every single woman in his court and sired children with all of them, but what killed me was that couple of months later after this the additional event launched where my ruler lost interest in women and turned gay. I lost it then. CK3 lack this character, the combat is boring, and the lack of versatility in terms of events is really discourages long campaigns which is frankly shame in CK 2 I often did early start date till 1453 runs because I knew I had to fight ever step of the way ,unless its really late game. In addition what I would welcome in CK3, more RNG events, not just debiases, but weather events and disasters like a hurricane that might sink your ships with troops, or a volcano eruption or massive flood that devastate your infrastructure, the devs are so focused on the "sim" part that they forget that the game is actually grand strategy also.
Edit: would have killed them to add the CK 2 OST (with the DLC songs) to CK3, even as an add on for a buck or 2, CK2 even had the habit to play Christmas song if you played the game on Dec 25, which show fine attention to details in that game where such is lacking in CK3.
CK2's warfare surpasses that of CK3 in many aspects. Engaging in a battle for survival against a stronger enemy and the need to micromanage and preserve each levy, regardless of its size, just to raise a force that stands a chance of victory when defending a mountainous position near a river with commanders possessing suitable traits... it was always immersive and never got old for me. The feeling of triumph after a hard-fought victory and the crushing weight of defeat added to the immersion. In contrast, CK3 allows for immediate levy raising, even in vast empires where such swift mobilization would be unrealistic. Furthermore, battles in CK3 tend to be predictable ( the game even tells you ) and easily won by exploiting min-maxed levies, which diminishes the immersive and strategic elements of warfare. Maybe CK3 could add modes that allow players to choose if a mechanic is simple or complex, thus adding to immersion and flavour without losing its admittedly fair approach of simple gameplay for new players.
Ck2 >Ck3. I'm still playing Ck2 today (its more complex).
CK3 is dumbed down for the more casual gamer (to each their own). But I prefer Ck2.
Ck2 also has better art (ck3 events w those ugly character poses lololol😅)...I really like Ck2's battle tactics etc.
Ck3s battle system boring AF, all about stacking modifiers so that 65 knights slaughter 25k+ stacks w 0 losses...Ck3 is broken.
@@glorbez Yeah, I agree, min-maxing is pretty stupid. The modifiers were handled better in ck2 because they only applied to the levies from the holding in which the building was built, and the retinues were limited, Because of this, you actually had to play the actual part of the game, handling politics and diplomacy, to manage your vassals and allies, making sure each of them is content, since just like historical monarchs of the time, you were reliant on their armies to stay in power and expand your authority.
Replayed ck2 for the past week. I had fun(and stress) all the way through.
I played as one of the petty kingdom of wales to at first do a tall run as wales.
Everything went well till the viking age arrived. Wessex, Mercia, Essex, and Scotland are tributaries of mine while the entirety of Ireland are angry vassals who aren't willing to fight me yet due to my military might.
As my character is a prideful zealot, one must not lose his grip of Britania. He declared to himself that no viking shall live in his soil.
The man fended off ambitious adventurers, and vikings for decades until a tragedy occurred.
The king had perished in a battle after a duel with an enemy. Unfortunately, that enemy was his best friend, A duke from Ireland had mistaken him as an enemy and killed him. (30 prowess vs 7, somehow died...wow ck2)
5k walesmen contributed to the battle... Only 1k remained. The war ended in a white peace, but it was a total defeat for the kingdom.
A princess, now queen at the age of 13 is left to fix a kingdom that hates her to the bones with nothing but money that she had inherited from her late father. The young queen is by no means a brilliant strategist like her father was. But she is shrewd and knows that money is everything.
The young queen ordered a 19 year old genius strategist from the viking lands to form a mercenary band in exchange of marriage(Can't help it, he had 38 martial). This turned out well as those who dared to bare their fangs at her grip were impaled at the order of the queen. Unfortunately, the queen perished when giving birth to her first twin sons at the age of 30(She was homosexual, Almost felt like It was game over).
The 1st born inherited the kingdom of Wales while the second one inherited the kingdom of Ireland. Leading to a spiral of bloody wars that would unite Britania and Scandanavia in a one empire. (Yes, marrying a random genius turned out to be great because he gave my child a claim on sweden who ruled over denmark, norway, and sweden.)
There is more but I have no time on such.
"I was just being a cynic and having fun bro, I can't be blamed for joining Satan"
One time there was an outbreak of measles in my realm. I had to close the gates to stop the spread and my whole family was locked in their castle. We slowly but surely ran out of food and eventually my Count had to eat his family members to stay alive. My playthrough didn’t even last 20 years of in game time.
I pretty much agree with everyrhing. But dificulty is by far the biggest issue of ck3. You can add ton of features but if you can just fix every problem with gold and you can build unbeatable army in 2-3 generations you have no motivation to use those features. Fixing AI would significantly improve gameplay.
3:00 that is a real shame, since it's one of the most interesting aspects of The Middle Ages: the slow forming of mature states and the centralizing power of the Monarch through the buildup of laws and institutions founded on what the Romans left behind. THAT's what Royal Court should be about.....
I always have this one memory from my first mega campaign on CK2, the story of the unfortunate Emperor Aethan. This guy became emperor almost by a divine fluke; his brother (or nephew idk) died from being a long bout of illness, then the teenage son of the guy dies in a random battle so Aethan now rules because primogeniture. Aethan’s beloved wife had died during the war and it broke him, becoming a drunk and depressive. His vassals were not receptive and he butted heads, particularly with one of the kings and tried to curb his power. It’s important to note my empire was plagued by quite literally hundreds of pretenders which meant none of these guys could rule easily. Already dealing with a potential civil war another guy attempts to usurp him. This, coupled with the other crap, finally breaks Aethan and he commits suicide, unloved and alone after 2 miserable years of rule.
I've been seeing a lot of comments on this video in 2024 debating whether my points are valid or notifying me of the upcoming Chapter III. Please recognize that this video was about comparing the games as of June 2023. I honestly can't give you input on what's changed since then, as I have not played CK3 avidly since that time.
P.S. I have the time and ability to make some more videos right now, so feel free to let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like to see!
Nothing has changed, mostly flavor added, mechanically is still the same as in the time you had released the video.
Yes, We want your opinion on Roads of Power. We are still looking for a return of immersion like we felt in CK2
CK3 sameness issue really boils down to playstyle. If you don't change how you go about a problem you gonna have the same loop over and over.
I played development/invention rush, wide dynasty (my favorite at the moment), diplomatic court and just the pure brute force playstyle. Every game felt different and had a different set of challenges to solve. To be fair these were all multiplayer games and alot of fun came from the interaction too but the game loop was also an important part. For example the wide dynasty playstyle was just extremly funny. I just spread my dynasty on as many thrones as possible and stayed a duke for most of the game until I made the archduchy of austria via decision.
The problem CK3 has in my opinion is more that you are not enough incentivized to change it up, while in CK2 you needed every trick in the book only to survive so you look every game how to overcome your challenges and find new strategies to do so
Top 3 things I miss:
1. Wiki links and overall historical information. (so easy to implement, wtf)
2. Sounds when clicking on things; all the UI clicking soundsi n CK3 are the exact same.
3. Death sounds.
Lately I've finally gotten close to finishing my restoring rome campaign(starting in beneveto italy)in CK2 and converting the entire realm to Hellenism via the secret factions was a slog, it took me 5 tries and on my final attempt the whole realm callapsed in Anatolia early on and the catholics invaded greace at the same time. So my line fought and saved the empire regaining all the territory lost. Now that my line finally received the title pontificus maximus after reforming the hellenic faith and restoring rome, i feel like I've earned it!
Glad to see someone putting my thoughts into video form. Im still playing CK2 to this dsy while ive dropped 3 months ago. Deus Vult!
Well said and well thought out!
In my current CK2 campaign a character of mine I called 'The Chosen One', a strong genius, was faced with an uprising so big it wiped out all of my savings (I barely achieved White Peace), since I had to hire many mercenary companies despite my large armies, and he was assassinated after two years of rule. His son then died of the Black Plague, wiping out my main line of Carolingian rulers.
One of my best rulers in this run actually had the trait 'dull' and I had little hope for him, when he ascended the throne.
Didn't think I'd be reinstalling CK2 today - great video man
I like much more UI of CK2 then CK3. UI in new titles feels more optimized for console players.
Yes, and the issue with tailoring UI for ease of access and new players is that it lacks the sort of longevity you want in a game that’s expected to be played for hundreds or even thousands of hours.
I'm quite new to ck2 only first playing it in like 2022 or something when it became free. But I love the different scenarios and things you can do. I reformed Rome, conquered nearly the entire Balkans as a viking and converted constantinople to Norse. I created viking hispania. Reformed the Persian empire as a zoroastrian. Really love the game. You can actually go out and do whatever you want without the game becoming overcomplicated.
societies! really hate how those are completely lacking in ck3. but also miss the stories that just unfolded in that game without almost any effort by the player. I will never forget when my empress of Hispania took the throne at 15 and joined the benedict order and became so virtous that by the time she died at 30 something from disease she had become a saint. ended up naming a grand cathedral after her. i find i forget my characters in ck3 pretty quick
One thing i fail to understand about CK3 and it boggles my mind is that they had the PERFECT ocassion to introduce Artists in the game with the artefact mechanics and they didn't. Like paintings, portraits of rulers, sculptures, crazy inventors, alchemists coming to your court asking for sponsorship and when they finished the work you could put that artefacts in your court. How awesome would it have been after 3 or so generation to still have the portrait of your grea-great grandfather into your throne room? Instead we have the bland events for swords, generic jewelry or tapestries that get repeated over and over again, its like they took tye most boring parts of crafting and put it in the game instead of the more exciting stuff.
despite not playing ck3 i can agree that ck2 is a big challenge
i once played as the last carolingian ruler and i managed to claw my way up after 3 or 4 rulers to the position of french king and into francian emperor after that
best run ive had aside from my AtE California and my umayyad 769 resurgence runs
12:42 I miss hearing someone go "SILESIA" every 5 seconds
CK2 wasn't perfect, but it was really, really good. Also, as part of its long life, playing the game felt very different at different points in time.
I feel like CK3 expects you to shape your own lore or experience, with how much influence you have over your culture and your religion. In CK2 it was at times a struggle to even change from one religion to the other if you wanted to, not to mention that there were only a finite number of religions to choose from. I remember so many games I played in CK2, like when I started as William the Conqueror in an early version, or lucking my way into becoming the Emperor of the ERE through marriage and murder, or being an evil demon worshiper who used dark arts to get rid of my enemies. I once tried to unite the Rurikovich realms via seniority succession and was cursed for my landgrab by having absolutely unfit, inadequate old men as my heirs and eventual player characters.
CK3 doesn't tell these stories, at least not to the level the previous game would.
I wish there was more supernatural events in ck3, they added a unique feeling to ck2 of a mysterious unknown world; much like it was back then.
I'm very much in the same boat as you at the moment. Some things are better in CK3: the feudal obligation system, the dynamic culture- and religion system, the Stress system is good if a little clunky, the multiplayer is more fun and stable, the Tours & Tournaments features are great, separating friendly and hostile schemes is a good change.
But yes, I agree that CK2 is still overall the better and more replayable game. There are way more flavour events, and the game throws you way more curveballs which keeps every playthrough much more unique. And yes, what you mention at the end is probably my main gripe with CK3: characters don't change. Crusader Kings is primarily a role-playing game that is focused on its characters, and yet in CK3, none of them are unique. The very predictable Lifestyle system, the same for every ruler, just makes it so that you will become great at whatever you focus on, especially with the huge amount of genius/beautiful characters.
It also doesn't feel organic at all: in CK2, if you started executing people, you could become Cruel. If you focused on Martial, you could become Brawny. If you joined a monastic order, you would become Humble and lose Lustful/Gluttonous. In CK3, none of that happens. If you focus on Martial, you just get better at Martial. Your character doesn't change. It's a shame, because the Stress system does leave a lot of room for that.
The timed claims system doesn't help: the whole point of this game is marrying your way up, the way a real medieval ruler would do it. Just putting your Court Chaplain (why him, btw? Why not your Chancellor?) in a province and waiting for the inevitable claim just makes this feel too much like an EU4-style map painter.
I'm also really not a fan of the UI. It looks pretty at first glance, but it manages to cover so much of the screen while actually hiding some of the most important information multiple clicks deep. Very important notifications are buried among irrelevant ones in the big number on the top, and the huge list of notifications on the bottom right. Crown Authority and the Regency system are very easy to miss, in fact it took me many hours before I even noticed them. The actual tasks of your councilors are tiny icons next to an enormous portrait of them, when it should be the other way around. The character finder is buried under a few dots on the bottom right. Character modifier icons are tiny. Trait icons are too 'busy' and overdesigned: even after ~80 hours I don't have an intuitive idea which trait is which from a first glance. Your family tree, one of the most important screens in the game, is hidden behind several clicks, and even then, to get an overview of the entire thing requires multiple additional clicks. And for a game which focused so much on getting a pretty terrain map, getting the actual terrain information is not intuitive at all, and it comes at the cost of a clear political map.
You touched on it, but I agree that it doesn't make sense just how much income you lose at a change in rulership. I've generally found it very difficult to get a good feeling for why I'm earning as much or as little as I do.
Warfare is also quite annoying in CK3. Without an 'attach allies to army' button, you just kind of have to hope that your AI allies will follow you, and while the army AI is a lot better than CK2, sieging and countersieging can feel like a game of whack-a-mole which extends wars unnecessarily. Plus, you better have enough Trebuchets!
Up until Tours & Tournaments, I really wasn't very hopeful about CK3. But that expansion changed my outlook to a much more positive one. This game still has a lot of potential: it just needs much more love and polish. The overview of the two timelines you showed was very indicative of that. CK2 had so many DLCs that added so much to the game, just one after the other in rapid succession, and for a price that was less than half of the average CK3 DLC price. Meanwhile for CK3 the only major DLC we had for a long time was Royal Court, and it was basically just a standalone gimmick, for double or triple the price of game-changing DLC like Old Gods or Sword of Islam.
I like the art and the geography style of CK2 more than CK3. Feels more authentic and personnel. Also UI much better.
The problem with CK3 was said within the first 4 min. The game experience does not feel unique. The only DLC which comes close was the vikings DLC as it makes playing viking a bit more unique, until you become feudal.
Then it's the same rodeo again and again again...
There's plenty of issues with CK3 but if I could get them to focus on something it would be to make the game substantially harder. While it wouldn't fix the other issues, I think you'd notice them a lot less if there were serious challenges you could get invested in solving. Like you touched on, the feeling of accomplishment overcoming a difficult situation is a big part of what makes CK stories engaging and memorable. I feel like pretty much all my time in CK3 is spent with my brain basically turned off, because the game never pushes me to actually engage with it beyond a surface level.
Just as a little example the other day I did the "Kings to the Seventh Generation" achievement. It's classified as hard but literally all I had to do was win a couple easy wars then used "claim throne" on the king. Cherry on top is that even though he was almost done crushing an independence war the dude just gave in to me without a fight, even though my faction was only at ~70% support.
I play CK2 and some mods from CK3. The mods for CK3 are pretty good especially Realms in Exile and Elder Kings.
I’ve played both, CK2 after CK3, CK3 is more RP focused and already has most of CK2s best mods like ATE and AGOT which are even more fun with CK3. And they have a Crusader wars mod which combines Attila Total war 1212 AD mod with CK3, so the modding community is definitely better which means there’s a lot of potential within the game
Hey man, amazing video and very interesting analysis!
Thank you!
Great vid! Ended up playing some ck2 again after
One major issue I have with CK3 is the art style. It looks too much like a generic mobile game with its characterless, monochrome UI and Sims 4-esque graphics. It just lacks that medieval feel that CK2 has and really sucks you out of the experience.
I feel like the vikings in england is significantly overpowered as well, they always win against the AI Alfred and kill him in my games
I feel like Central Asia could use a lot of work especially because this is such an interesting period for the region
Agree with the content of the vide, and glad you address the poor mic in the description. One other note is your points would be MUCH clearer if you the video shown to the game you were currently talking about. If you were comparing CK2 to God Of War, points would be obvious, but CK2 n CK3 are so similar I feel this optical defined line would provide clarity as you spoke, cheers.
they made CK3 to appeal the reddit userbase
i second everything you said (10000h+ in CK, Ck2 and CK3)
Definitely the lack of flavor between culture annoys me, but with more DLC it could be fixed. What also annoys me, and unfortunately I don't know if it's fixable, is character progression giving you 'magic' 'arcady' traits that give you for example claims without having to work for them.
#55
Really like how you articulated the differences between the two games. Have found CK3 a bit more hollow but looks good. CK2 with its expansive dlc is a truly great game. The features you mention will all come, in the next few years through 100's of dollars of DLC.
That was a very pleasantly thought out comparison video. Nice job. Now I wanna buy Ck2.
CK3 is one of my most played games on steam and easily in my top 10 favorite games, but I’ve never played CK2. This vid really showed what I was missing. Idk if I’ll like it as much but I’m def checking it out.
how do you like it?
CK2 is quite easy. All you have to do is to have as few vassals as possible, they are always at 100 happiness from all the land and titles you give them and give you max tax and max levies, allowing you to steamroll the competition.
CK3 needs everything CK2 has but improved and better
Going to subscribe to see you become the next big thing! Keep it up!
So true, I spent way more time in ck2 then I have been able to in ck3
I never actually gpt to play ck2 but this has convinced me to give it a go and dit h ck3
Talking about a game that had an 8 year lifespan vs that of less than a 3 year lifespan that has got many more people enjoying paradox games. CK2 still exists and nothing is stopping anyone going back to play it. That all sounds win/win to me.
In the elder scrolls mod, I opted to play a Vampire Necromancer. Suffice it to say, that was something very much difficult and it felt harder than the CK 2 counter-part. So when I ended up taking over and becoming King, I was on a very wobbly house of cards. And it was this way the entire way as long as I remained the same religion. Even with Max Dread, stuff was sensitive.
But this was a very narrow circumstance.
I really miss supernatural events. Also i miss plagues, that were just added and I didn't play with them yet. Great projects. I really loved them. Don't know why, but by building them you could literally go down in history. There could be so much interesting ideas of representing great projects in CK3, i don't understand why are they not adding them to the game
In ck2 I had a daughter, after her birth my King of England got a vision of the great things she would go on to do, thousands of men bowing to her knees and great conquests. Suffice to say these things happened, after a Crusade she would be put on the throne of a now weak and angry egyptian kingdom. She would engage in multiple duels and quell many rebellions until she had gained control and was a powerful empress, unfortunately her husband which she had been forced to marry had other plans. The Empress was planning on bribing the catholic church to divorce him and have children of her own dynasty through matrilineal marriage, unfortunately after the birth of her first son (Which was of her husband's dynasty) she would then be kidnapped and killed by her husband.
And that all happened just through basic gameplay. In CK3 to get a cool story it feels like you really have to WANT a good story and have to imagine stuff which isn't happening in game, you gotta force it. Anyway really good vid, underrated to say the least. Will be subscribing.
completely agree, great video
I think the only criticism i have a gripe with in this video is the UI, i think CK3s' is undeniably better and after hours and hours of playing CK2 the sounds just get insanely annoying, especially when you quickly click between menus and the they start overlapping, i wish they had gone all out with the paper/medieval theme for the UI in CK3 tbh
4:23 Is exactly how I feel about CK3 too. The only way to enjoy the game somewhat is to put up artificial limitations on yourself, which provides some challenge but also takes out immersion. I love "deathwars" in EU4, you feel constantly challenged militarily and economically early game with smaller powers. The tip of the Sword of Damocles is on your throat, ready to fall (creating tension, immersion, creative strategies). The AI in CK3 doesn't feel like it could actually weave a plausible historical tapestry of rise and fall. It mostly just sits there or does or or two major pushes. Mostly you don't need to cheese CK3 at all, it's not worth the effort to come up with any interesting strategy once you know the basics (build it and they will x). Past 70 years you are always completely unstoppable, stable and with nothing more to do.
CK2 is more feature complete, but the features that CK3 has are much deeper than CK2's.
My problem with CK2 is that I don't understand shit of how to do stuff
It's fun starting small and working your way up to forging your own empire, I usually don't play alot past that cause it seems at that point its just babysitting trying to keep dejure intact etc it's still a blast and you can learn about different cultures and real kingdoms.
Yea im gonna start ck2. But can someone answer this question. Is it like the other paradox games where you need 20+ dlcs before the game is any good and if so, what dlc should i prioritise?
all of them preferably but depends who you want to play
The black flag is always an option.
CK3 needs way more criticism. crticizing that game gets you banned on their offical discord by a guy named trynnex. Same on the steam forums. i'm not a hater i just want the game to improve, and they delete and perscute me all the time. You need to reupload this at a slower talking speed and with a sound fix. We need more people to speak up.
Good news! chapter 3 looks like it will be fire, landless play, byzantium administration, (plagues which have come out) and some other stuff i forgo
I hope so!
CK2 is definitely a lot harder than CK3 but that isn't saying much in itself. Catholics (the largest religion in 1066 and the most flavourful and mechanically developed) have a trivially easy time making god-tier rulers as Catholic societies let you collect every virtue and other great traits with ease, while Crusades provide even relatively weak rulers a way of getting artifacts, prestige, great traits, and 10k+ gold by sieging a few provinces and fighting in a couple of curbstomp battles. In one Latin Empire campaign I had a succession of 5 rulers and 3 were made saints with the other 2 canonised. Islamic rulers can groom the best and most powerful heirs and councilors possible and never have to worry about realm splitting despite massive families. Norse rulers get infinite money from raiding and free claims on anyone they like. And let's not forget that due to how bonuses from cultural buildings are calculated it's possible to make your retinues several times stronger than normal levies and instantly disintegrate armies 10 times their size with almost no casualties. The list goes on!
Have to agree with this man on every point.
The great thing about ck2 is that victory wasn't inevitable. Was playing as charlemagne and tried to do that leet strat where you marry irene and get elected byzantine emperor. Well I did, but then I contracted cancer and died when my son was only 2. Since the electors wouldn't vote for an infant I only had the duchy of thrace. An independence faction fired so i pressed my claim but the revolt leader got imprisoned. the realm came back and i got absolutely wallopped, title revoked, game over. From the biggest empire since rome to nothing just like that!
You couldn't be more right. I always tell my friends what makes ck2 better is it truly felt like anything can happen. You don't feel that with ck3
I always love the moments in ck2 where your character just decides to loose their brain because they fought in a close battle. Or those multiple times i was forces to play a 5 year old kid and my regent decided he wanted more money, so you need to change the spy master to someone that is capable of defending my people but loyal enough that he doesn't kill your ass.
Also many times you are forced to do horrible things, like remove someone because they are going to use any chance they have to kill you or take over everything you have.
Still got my 2012 box. What a cool game.
Because CK3 dont have the necessary 40000000 Money worth DLC's released yet
10:37 CK2 dlcs were absolutely better compared to CK3 dlcs. Even stuff like Res Publica which was probably one of the less interesting ones was actually quite developed with how tradeposts and Republics worked. And it was fun to play the Republics from time to time. But CK3 dlcs have way too little content to justify their price. Like every single feature in Tournaments and whatever should have been part of the Royal Court for example, because it is all the stuff that ties into what the monarch would be dealing with on at daily basis. It really feels like they cut a single dlc into two, but didn't fill either with a significant amount of content.