The contract inheritance could be solved honestly using either events or royal court. When you gain a new kingdom, all contracts are reset to default, but the vassal gains a decision to come see you to try and regain his old contract, which could lead to an event where you either accept (opinion bonus), refuse (opinion malus), or give parts of it to try and appease him without giving him everything he wants (diplomacy check)
The vassal issue is one in particular I feel like EU4 should handle better. Well, maybe supply as well. But the status of vassals is such an important issue in the first half of Eu4's scope. Off the top of my head: the de Bourgognes (Burgundy) were both a peerage of France (the duchy of Burgundy, proper) and independent counts in the HRE (Franche-Comte, etc). When the Prussian Hohenzollerns died out, the Brandenburg line inherited, becoming both an independent elector in the HRE as well as a vassal of Poland-Lithuania (Ducal Prussia). Additionally, vassals simply DID have more power to do things than as presented in EU4 - smaller revolts, marrying nobles other than their overlords, engaging in their own campaigns, etc.
Ck3 is a great game for paradox newbies recently introduced my little neighbor to it and she loved it that thing isn’t possible with ck2 because of its interface especially with people that are not accustomed to pc games
feels like ck2 supply system was still noteworthy to look at. when in eu4 you have 40k stacks in a 10k supply province, you take 5%. in ck2 you generally only worry anout supply for 2 or 3 months before your stack is ten times smaller. also the system worked really well with black pest to really mark it as a time where no war was possible since all supply is at max 1k when under black pest
Crusader King is also is way better representation of personal unions. It's not a huge thing but the way that personal unioins work in eu4 is broken and makes the game easy. But in CK you have to actually work on a dynastic game to inherit somone else throne. It might take three genration to get a claim on somone throne.
Having you're entire army be pikemen as Scotland is quite good actually! Scottish culture gets a unique all-pikemen retinue *and* Scottish commanders can roll a special quite powerful "schiltron formation" tactic. Technically you do want to mix in a few generic Defence retinues in there to get your archer composition above 1%, so you can roll the shieldwall formation tactic in skirmish phase and reduce casualties there. And you'll do very little damage in skirmish and pursuit phases. But if you roll even half way decently on your tactics in melee phase you will slaughter most opponents. The Italians have a similar retinue+tactic combo that makes their pikes very powerful too.
1) Full agree. But also would like to add how well they've implemented the zones of control and local level settlements in CK3 - you can run past castles but you loose guys. 2) Inheriting vassal rights and obligations is historical if it was pledged title to title.
@@Noobmaster-of3xk yeah, in late game I swap over to look at their men at arms soemtimes and theyll have like 4 onagers, 7 trebuches and 1 bombard making 25 a month, so the ai cant match you in a siege past like 50 years which also ruins the balance
@@qhu3878 It's because the AI can't get the financial ball rolling. It's stuck in a loop of paying for wars, events and activities, and rarely has the money to invest in gold-making buildings. Unlike Ck2 it can't make up for this by collecting a lot of vassal mayors either because tax rates are lower and cities have the same buildings as castles.
A fun thing to do with the vassal title rules might be to make ir similar how they handle title inheritance generally: start with historically accurate (but painful) systems like gavelkind but allow you to reform into preferred systems over time
5:05 I think it's fairly obvious. Make it so that when a vassal's liege changes through some other means than standard succession (which I'm sure the game can have a check for), then the new liege can adjust the vassal contract, perhaps with it being considered an act of tyranny unless you give more concessions than you take away.
I mean could be an option, but even you touch upon the finer details of 'ok but maybe tyranny should be involved'. Also imaging inheriting a country and getting 50 poppups over vassal contract re-negotiations.
I do like Ck3, although I think the best build was right before Legends of the Dead. The game ran so much better, spammed less events, no legitimacy punishing you for things outside your control. Win a whole war, gain 50 legitimacy. Lose 1 battle, lose 50 legitimacy. Buy the dlc and hold 1 funeral for 300 gold, gain 150 legitimacy. Disease exists, lose 200 legitimacy. Next month if you still haven't cured every disease on Earth, lose another 100 legitimacy. Duke with 4 duchy titles rebels and you want to revoke his titles for actually committing treason? -600 legitimacy.
It's annoying, but considering how annoying vasals were historically, it makes sense. I swear, legends of the dead is worst great update I have ever seen.
my favorite thing from CK2 they dropped for CK3 is resources having passive effects for how high they are so there was always a dillema on if you spend them or not
Ok stellaris makes sense bc… you know… space is big and any even semi-realistic supply system would have entire fleets starve to death in mere months, so you kinda have to assume they grow their own food
Tbh my head canon is that they have supply ships meet them whenever they’re in owned territory and the hull aspect in enemy territory isn’t just hull but also storage
I really hope we see the CK2 merchant Republics again in CK3. It was interesting trying to manage the power of other families of the Republics. And your own family size. Also felt like a much sneakier way to play since you often depended on trade ports as justification to seize town with mercenaries against feudal nobles.
With the landless gameplay we'll receive this year I am very sure it will be just a matter of time when we can play as republics. I'm 90% sure we'll get it next year.
You will never learn true bliss when you have an entire regiment of crossbowmen and cavalry going against an army 25x their size and still fucking anihililating the enemy because their stats were buffed to 100x with buildings and you basically created a freaking kill squad
2:42 if they added devastation to hoi4, then it could be used to simulate an army stripping a city bare for supply like what happen in stalingrad, then sieges could be simulated.
10:24 - one thing I think bears mentioning is the customization of culture and religion in CK3 is absolutely astounding compared to CK2, and I like ck2 quite a lot, but oh boy is ck3 a massive upgrade in this area. Even if you ignore the shenanigans of religious reformation, the dynamic culture system is fantastic, and cultures feel much more impactful and diverse than in ck2. I do wish that they had adapted the viceroyalties system into ck3’s vassal contract system, I miss kingdom viceroyalties for realm management…..
CK2 combat mechanics have whole tactics system where it rolls out a certain strategy for a flank based on its composition (ratio of one unit type to another)
I overall like CK3 but I feel like it needs far too many DLCs to function on a baseline level and for a near-five year old game its mechanics are somewhat lacking
As a self proclaimed CK3 pro, with 1.4k hours in CK2 and 3.3k hours in CK3, I really like vassal contracts. I wish there was an easier way to change all vassal contracts, or change the default contract when granting the titles though.
As a paradox enjoyer, I honestly think none of the games are bad or superior about how they handled armies within their own right. They fit into the playstyle of the game. Although I would highly prefer ck2's or 3's supply system over others. And hate the army system in vic3.
Best part of Crusader Kings is the layered system of vassals. It feels more fun compared playing a "nation" that is only different because of stats and map color. Until power is centralized, a big kingdom in ck2 is fragile and vassals be dangerous if you're not careful compared to Eu4 where it's arbitrary modifiers for everything and a 12k stack revolt that you put down in 2 seconds. Nations in EU4 can be unique especially compared to ck2 but it really needs good flavor and missions to be interesting.
CK has so many good ideas, but the more I looked at it, the more I wished it had. Just the idea of a map strategy focused RPG is incredible and how vary little innovation has been done in this space is sad.
I feel like the vassal system of victoria 3 after the Spheres of Influence is pretty good, with quite a bit of customisation like giving own market for example. I just think overlords should be able to ignore liberty desire when increasing or decreasing autonomy. I don't think Russian empire would care if their Baltic subjects want to join Russia or not, nor would Communist Britain care when decolonising if the colonial government in Canada wants to stay part of the empire.
I've thought of a few options for forming Italy in eu4 that are (somewhat) unorthodox. if you start as Venice you can quickly swap to an Italian signora with sortition (the bonus to stats Venice gets for rulers only exists for lottery type elections (sortition/Venice government). and is from a mission reward that requires you to have every tier of reform, and that mission (according to the wiki) only exists if you don't have winds of change, and even if some people don't think it's worth it the missions that care about the government type don't care if you have sortition or the Venice government reform) the only main issues you'd have are not starting in the hre and culture shifting. the other option is republic Aragon (you could sometimes get the pu on castile via event. you have an opportunity to get a few achievements. you can get Byzantium. you can do culture shifts fairly easily compared to Venice which makes it possible to switch to Italian signora and you'd get sortition for the first president regardless (good stats+ good traits+ he starts younger than any election candidate), and after you integrate Naples you can form two sicilies (via culture shift) which will have a mission reward of 50 reform progress which basicly pays you back for the signora and the new national ideas will help much more than what Aragon starts with)
In fairness, if you are allowing culture swaps, I have to mention my favorite tag, and the incredibly balanced... Dithmarshen. 20% goods produced, a unique government and 5% admin eff until the end of the game, and while you do start quite far from Italy in Northern Germany, the journey is doable and frankly its quite a fun campaign.
@@LemonCake101 after looking though the mission tree on the wiki. i can say it's at the very least ambitus. but i don't know if I'd be good enough to do it in ironman, also it makes the tolerance mission from Naples harder because owning 50 provinces means you may half to remove a country or to which may prevent the minimum required amount of nations existing for them to follow the same faith your the defender of (though you could flip to an Islamic religion and get it that way, and then go to another religion like catholic or protestant to better take advantage of that one religious mission of savoy/Sardinia-piedmont) and starting as Venice would get you better leaders (and Venice isn't a formable) while Aragon is in a pretty decent position to gain a lot of power (also from what i remember. republic Aragon starts as a peasant republic, and I'd say it's probably worth keeping the nobility)
I actually dont like sieges in ck3. Maybe if there was more random events that give (or maybe take!) progress it would be more interesting, but it's kinda boring and eu4 dice rolls are a bit more fun to me. 6:53 oh and guess what? Crossbows are optimal in ck3. If you dont have that - heavy cavalry or any unique variant. if you dont have that too - heavy infantry or any variant OR bowmen if you plan to transition into crossbows eventually. supply is good, if only it wasn't for the fact that sometimes armies can live off their supply for ages since one of the stats reduces supply decay (i quite often see -2 per month and it doesnt even scale with how many troops are there, so a 100500 troops stack can spend 50 months out in dead desert with no losses just coz the general has 20 stewardship or whatever) and it's also very easy to get supply and i rarely ran into having 0 supply at all outside of tribal steppes
As someone whose first Paradox game was CK3, going back to EU4 felt like a real downgrade in the "how fun is going to war" department. I do like some things better, like having more control over peace deals and extended sieges causing manpower losses. But the customizable men-at-arms and intuitive mechanics for supply, siege, and advantage is just so much less of a headache, and I hope EU5 isn't afraid to copy some of that homework.
I did a couple videos on Eu5/Peoject Ceaser already, but outside of ‘oh wow guys new map’ or ‘oh wow new mechanic’ there isn’t much to talk about? I would prefer to wait until the game is here though before I commit opinions etc
@@LemonCake101 ah ok that makes sense I generally like listening to your opinion/takes on this kinda stuff I’ll go look at those previous videos you mentioned
Stellaris not having a supply system is fine with me its already annoying enough to manage 40 planets and a war when i just have to point and click with no thought
The title almost makes it seem like you gotta look for good things in CK games lol. They're fantastic games, no doubt the best RP experience you can get from PDS. Next up give us 5 good things about Stellaris, you threw a lot of shade at it this video.
Eh, it was fair criticism. Just that the video focused on aspects where Stellaris isn't as good, since it was about good things about CK3. Obviously if you start talking about the economic system, the conversation is very much flipped between CK3, Stellaris and Vic 3. And roleplay wise I think both CK3 and Stellaris are good (although CK3 keeps the edge)
the vassal contracts in ck3 is one of the few things i really hate about the game. the ai is very very stupid with it so you have your vassals giving their vassals all kinds of perks and then that vassal becomes your vassal and suddenly your new 3 in all stats vassal becomes a council member you cannot remove, they also do not pay any taxes or supply any manpower and are protected from revocation etc.. it gets really annoying when this happens to multiple vassals in a row every goddamn year.
I disagree on a lot of points here, I think eu4's sieges are better than ck3's because ck3 sieges are very static while eu4 sieges are significantly more dynamic. ck3 has very specific vassal interactions but is lacking a lot of the vassal gameplay that eu4 has. ck3 has a very broad range of government mechanics but you can't really make any decisions about how you want to govern. and while ck3 has more interesting special units, combat still feels very static because you can't upgrade aside from making the stacks bigger you can't split stacks and you're typically best off just stacking as many of men at arms into an army while leaving all ur peasants at home.
I fully agree with you. Also, on top of everything else, I don't even prefer the Attrition system of CK3 to that of CK2's. I actually wanted to. Ck2's is a lot more complex and varied, making it much more difficult to plan long campaigns' logistical needs. Just a glance at the wiki for both games in regards to Attrition shows this. I'm a little confused why Lemon focused on CK3's system so much as if it was a step up and innovative, when it is just a more streamlined and simplified version of the same system.
@@Notphenix at least in eu4 you can strategize around breaking the walls, in ck3 your only option is praying that the random chance breakthrough happens twice before you can assault, and on top of that every single county has at least one fort.
EU4 sieges while sometimes annoying are way better then the deterministic sieges of Vic2 and CK2 imo. I hate that there is no rng to sieges in those games and that you cant recreate the historically very long sieges irl. From a gameplay perspective knowing 100% when a siege is going to be done is also very boring gameplay. Eu4 sieges>>>>>>>>Vic2&CK2 sieges.
0:40 - Your shock damage defense video prepared me for this one!
Ck2 was my gateway paradox drug.
A Lemon Cake video? Being positive? More likely then you think...
Natives being unable to differentiate between than and then
The contract inheritance could be solved honestly using either events or royal court. When you gain a new kingdom, all contracts are reset to default, but the vassal gains a decision to come see you to try and regain his old contract, which could lead to an event where you either accept (opinion bonus), refuse (opinion malus), or give parts of it to try and appease him without giving him everything he wants (diplomacy check)
The vassal issue is one in particular I feel like EU4 should handle better. Well, maybe supply as well. But the status of vassals is such an important issue in the first half of Eu4's scope. Off the top of my head: the de Bourgognes (Burgundy) were both a peerage of France (the duchy of Burgundy, proper) and independent counts in the HRE (Franche-Comte, etc). When the Prussian Hohenzollerns died out, the Brandenburg line inherited, becoming both an independent elector in the HRE as well as a vassal of Poland-Lithuania (Ducal Prussia). Additionally, vassals simply DID have more power to do things than as presented in EU4 - smaller revolts, marrying nobles other than their overlords, engaging in their own campaigns, etc.
I'm prepared to stand alone as the singular CK3 fan watching this video
hi
You aren't alone!
Ck3 is a great game for paradox newbies recently introduced my little neighbor to it and she loved it that thing isn’t possible with ck2 because of its interface especially with people that are not accustomed to pc games
feels like ck2 supply system was still noteworthy to look at.
when in eu4 you have 40k stacks in a 10k supply province, you take 5%. in ck2 you generally only worry anout supply for 2 or 3 months before your stack is ten times smaller.
also the system worked really well with black pest to really mark it as a time where no war was possible since all supply is at max 1k when under black pest
I'm so in this guy's head, that he's talking about my main game, Crusader Kings 3. I'll be waiting for you from Mount 25K-Subs, Lemon
Please start paying rent you are 4 weeks behind
+25% Chance to trigger Duels upon leading an Army in Battle
Crusader King is also is way better representation of personal unions. It's not a huge thing but the way that personal unioins work in eu4 is broken and makes the game easy. But in CK you have to actually work on a dynastic game to inherit somone else throne. It might take three genration to get a claim on somone throne.
Having you're entire army be pikemen as Scotland is quite good actually! Scottish culture gets a unique all-pikemen retinue *and* Scottish commanders can roll a special quite powerful "schiltron formation" tactic. Technically you do want to mix in a few generic Defence retinues in there to get your archer composition above 1%, so you can roll the shieldwall formation tactic in skirmish phase and reduce casualties there. And you'll do very little damage in skirmish and pursuit phases. But if you roll even half way decently on your tactics in melee phase you will slaughter most opponents. The Italians have a similar retinue+tactic combo that makes their pikes very powerful too.
Oh I know, that's why I did give it as an example, because its quite a popular 'build'.
1) Full agree. But also would like to add how well they've implemented the zones of control and local level settlements in CK3 - you can run past castles but you loose guys.
2) Inheriting vassal rights and obligations is historical if it was pledged title to title.
1. Yes, didn't touch upon that in the video, but I also do like that system. 2. While true, and honestly accurate, that doesn't make it fun.
you can still more or less just run through, reaver reduces losses from that by 75%
@@LemonCake101 for you maybe, I like it
The best part Ck3 is the balancing being there is no balance
half of that is ai men at arms, wait 50 years and check ai empires. Theyll have 1/8 bowmen 2/8 bowmen 7/8 light footmen 1/8 onagers
@@qhu3878 And they havent stationed them in buildings with the damage upgrades while my aromorerd Horsemen do 300 damage
@@Noobmaster-of3xk yeah, in late game I swap over to look at their men at arms soemtimes and theyll have like 4 onagers, 7 trebuches and 1 bombard making 25 a month, so the ai cant match you in a siege past like 50 years which also ruins the balance
@@qhu3878 It's because the AI can't get the financial ball rolling. It's stuck in a loop of paying for wars, events and activities, and rarely has the money to invest in gold-making buildings. Unlike Ck2 it can't make up for this by collecting a lot of vassal mayors either because tax rates are lower and cities have the same buildings as castles.
I'm in a middle of a campaign, I created an army of mostly cataphracts and horse archers and it just shreds everything.
A fun thing to do with the vassal title rules might be to make ir similar how they handle title inheritance generally: start with historically accurate (but painful) systems like gavelkind but allow you to reform into preferred systems over time
5:05 I think it's fairly obvious. Make it so that when a vassal's liege changes through some other means than standard succession (which I'm sure the game can have a check for), then the new liege can adjust the vassal contract, perhaps with it being considered an act of tyranny unless you give more concessions than you take away.
I mean could be an option, but even you touch upon the finer details of 'ok but maybe tyranny should be involved'. Also imaging inheriting a country and getting 50 poppups over vassal contract re-negotiations.
@@LemonCake101 That's why I said it'd require the liege change to be caused by a means other than standard succession, like conquest.
I do like Ck3, although I think the best build was right before Legends of the Dead. The game ran so much better, spammed less events, no legitimacy punishing you for things outside your control. Win a whole war, gain 50 legitimacy.
Lose 1 battle, lose 50 legitimacy.
Buy the dlc and hold 1 funeral for 300 gold, gain 150 legitimacy.
Disease exists, lose 200 legitimacy.
Next month if you still haven't cured every disease on Earth, lose another 100 legitimacy.
Duke with 4 duchy titles rebels and you want to revoke his titles for actually committing treason? -600 legitimacy.
It's annoying, but considering how annoying vasals were historically, it makes sense. I swear, legends of the dead is worst great update I have ever seen.
my favorite thing from CK2 they dropped for CK3 is resources having passive effects for how high they are so there was always a dillema on if you spend them or not
what resources
Ok stellaris makes sense bc… you know… space is big and any even semi-realistic supply system would have entire fleets starve to death in mere months, so you kinda have to assume they grow their own food
Tbh my head canon is that they have supply ships meet them whenever they’re in owned territory and the hull aspect in enemy territory isn’t just hull but also storage
I really hope we see the CK2 merchant Republics again in CK3. It was interesting trying to manage the power of other families of the Republics. And your own family size. Also felt like a much sneakier way to play since you often depended on trade ports as justification to seize town with mercenaries against feudal nobles.
With the landless gameplay we'll receive this year I am very sure it will be just a matter of time when we can play as republics. I'm 90% sure we'll get it next year.
8:16 My retinue of full Longbowman buffed with full forest demense beg to differ.
You will never learn true bliss when you have an entire regiment of crossbowmen and cavalry going against an army 25x their size and still fucking anihililating the enemy because their stats were buffed to 100x with buildings and you basically created a freaking kill squad
2:42 if they added devastation to hoi4, then it could be used to simulate an army stripping a city bare for supply like what happen in stalingrad, then sieges could be simulated.
10:24 - one thing I think bears mentioning is the customization of culture and religion in CK3 is absolutely astounding compared to CK2, and I like ck2 quite a lot, but oh boy is ck3 a massive upgrade in this area. Even if you ignore the shenanigans of religious reformation, the dynamic culture system is fantastic, and cultures feel much more impactful and diverse than in ck2. I do wish that they had adapted the viceroyalties system into ck3’s vassal contract system, I miss kingdom viceroyalties for realm management…..
CK2 combat mechanics have whole tactics system where it rolls out a certain strategy for a flank based on its composition (ratio of one unit type to another)
and also based on the commander, CK2 combat is GOAT.
I overall like CK3 but I feel like it needs far too many DLCs to function on a baseline level and for a near-five year old game its mechanics are somewhat lacking
Oh God, its been 5 years... I swear it came out like a couple weeks ago...
@@LemonCake101 4 years, but yeah. Its been a while..
They dont make paradox games like they used to @@LemonCake101
Positivity with a game i like??? In MY youtube feed??? This is unacceptable
As a self proclaimed CK3 pro, with 1.4k hours in CK2 and 3.3k hours in CK3, I really like vassal contracts. I wish there was an easier way to change all vassal contracts, or change the default contract when granting the titles though.
As a paradox enjoyer, I honestly think none of the games are bad or superior about how they handled armies within their own right. They fit into the playstyle of the game. Although I would highly prefer ck2's or 3's supply system over others. And hate the army system in vic3.
Best part of Crusader Kings is the layered system of vassals. It feels more fun compared playing a "nation" that is only different because of stats and map color. Until power is centralized, a big kingdom in ck2 is fragile and vassals be dangerous if you're not careful compared to Eu4 where it's arbitrary modifiers for everything and a 12k stack revolt that you put down in 2 seconds. Nations in EU4 can be unique especially compared to ck2 but it really needs good flavor and missions to be interesting.
CK has so many good ideas, but the more I looked at it, the more I wished it had. Just the idea of a map strategy focused RPG is incredible and how vary little innovation has been done in this space is sad.
I feel like the vassal system of victoria 3 after the Spheres of Influence is pretty good, with quite a bit of customisation like giving own market for example. I just think overlords should be able to ignore liberty desire when increasing or decreasing autonomy. I don't think Russian empire would care if their Baltic subjects want to join Russia or not, nor would Communist Britain care when decolonising if the colonial government in Canada wants to stay part of the empire.
sooooo, it seems like I'll install CK2 again,
also not mentioning the great randomizer of CK2 (countries, races and all) is a sin
animal kingdoms option...
I've thought of a few options for forming Italy in eu4 that are (somewhat) unorthodox. if you start as Venice you can quickly swap to an Italian signora with sortition (the bonus to stats Venice gets for rulers only exists for lottery type elections (sortition/Venice government). and is from a mission reward that requires you to have every tier of reform, and that mission (according to the wiki) only exists if you don't have winds of change, and even if some people don't think it's worth it the missions that care about the government type don't care if you have sortition or the Venice government reform) the only main issues you'd have are not starting in the hre and culture shifting. the other option is republic Aragon (you could sometimes get the pu on castile via event. you have an opportunity to get a few achievements. you can get Byzantium. you can do culture shifts fairly easily compared to Venice which makes it possible to switch to Italian signora and you'd get sortition for the first president regardless (good stats+ good traits+ he starts younger than any election candidate), and after you integrate Naples you can form two sicilies (via culture shift) which will have a mission reward of 50 reform progress which basicly pays you back for the signora and the new national ideas will help much more than what Aragon starts with)
In fairness, if you are allowing culture swaps, I have to mention my favorite tag, and the incredibly balanced... Dithmarshen. 20% goods produced, a unique government and 5% admin eff until the end of the game, and while you do start quite far from Italy in Northern Germany, the journey is doable and frankly its quite a fun campaign.
@@LemonCake101 after looking though the mission tree on the wiki. i can say it's at the very least ambitus. but i don't know if I'd be good enough to do it in ironman, also it makes the tolerance mission from Naples harder because owning 50 provinces means you may half to remove a country or to which may prevent the minimum required amount of nations existing for them to follow the same faith your the defender of (though you could flip to an Islamic religion and get it that way, and then go to another religion like catholic or protestant to better take advantage of that one religious mission of savoy/Sardinia-piedmont) and starting as Venice would get you better leaders (and Venice isn't a formable) while Aragon is in a pretty decent position to gain a lot of power (also from what i remember. republic Aragon starts as a peasant republic, and I'd say it's probably worth keeping the nobility)
Crusader kings II is still superior to 3 imo
Ck3 has a long road ahead for sure
I actually dont like sieges in ck3. Maybe if there was more random events that give (or maybe take!) progress it would be more interesting, but it's kinda boring and eu4 dice rolls are a bit more fun to me.
6:53 oh and guess what? Crossbows are optimal in ck3. If you dont have that - heavy cavalry or any unique variant. if you dont have that too - heavy infantry or any variant OR bowmen if you plan to transition into crossbows eventually.
supply is good, if only it wasn't for the fact that sometimes armies can live off their supply for ages since one of the stats reduces supply decay (i quite often see -2 per month and it doesnt even scale with how many troops are there, so a 100500 troops stack can spend 50 months out in dead desert with no losses just coz the general has 20 stewardship or whatever) and it's also very easy to get supply and i rarely ran into having 0 supply at all outside of tribal steppes
As someone whose first Paradox game was CK3, going back to EU4 felt like a real downgrade in the "how fun is going to war" department. I do like some things better, like having more control over peace deals and extended sieges causing manpower losses. But the customizable men-at-arms and intuitive mechanics for supply, siege, and advantage is just so much less of a headache, and I hope EU5 isn't afraid to copy some of that homework.
Really weird question to ask, will you be talking about eu5 at all, or what you may want in eu5/project ceaser?
I did a couple videos on Eu5/Peoject Ceaser already, but outside of ‘oh wow guys new map’ or ‘oh wow new mechanic’ there isn’t much to talk about? I would prefer to wait until the game is here though before I commit opinions etc
@@LemonCake101 ah ok that makes sense
I generally like listening to your opinion/takes on this kinda stuff
I’ll go look at those previous videos you mentioned
Stellaris not having a supply system is fine with me its already annoying enough to manage 40 planets and a war when i just have to point and click with no thought
The title almost makes it seem like you gotta look for good things in CK games lol. They're fantastic games, no doubt the best RP experience you can get from PDS. Next up give us 5 good things about Stellaris, you threw a lot of shade at it this video.
I feel like if anything I was really harsh to Viccy 3
Eh, it was fair criticism. Just that the video focused on aspects where Stellaris isn't as good, since it was about good things about CK3. Obviously if you start talking about the economic system, the conversation is very much flipped between CK3, Stellaris and Vic 3. And roleplay wise I think both CK3 and Stellaris are good (although CK3 keeps the edge)
REYD SHADOW LEGENDEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Hey, I need some way to pay off my student debt!
the vassal contracts in ck3 is one of the few things i really hate about the game. the ai is very very stupid with it so you have your vassals giving their vassals all kinds of perks and then that vassal becomes your vassal and suddenly your new 3 in all stats vassal becomes a council member you cannot remove, they also do not pay any taxes or supply any manpower and are protected from revocation etc..
it gets really annoying when this happens to multiple vassals in a row every goddamn year.
Yeah that part as mentioned isn’t great
@@LemonCake101 I resolved it by simply removing council rights as an option in the contracts
Jaba the cot
The best part by far though is the satanic society
We need something societies back for Ck3
Where lithuanian provinces tierlist?
Please no
@@LemonCake101 You are bound to run out of ideas someday...
the #1 thing CK3 does well is that its easy to uninstall.
I have couple more thing to suggest
5. Nothing
4. Mostly Nothing
3. Null
2. It’s the Sims
1. Not a thing
I’ve never even seen a picture of this game so you can trust me
Crusader Kings has been called the sims for men for a reason
The best thing in ck3 is optimization lol
Why ignore crusader kings complete? Paradox tourist
Sorry never played it :(
@@LemonCake101 i got it for free in gog its decent
I disagree on a lot of points here, I think eu4's sieges are better than ck3's because ck3 sieges are very static while eu4 sieges are significantly more dynamic.
ck3 has very specific vassal interactions but is lacking a lot of the vassal gameplay that eu4 has.
ck3 has a very broad range of government mechanics but you can't really make any decisions about how you want to govern.
and while ck3 has more interesting special units, combat still feels very static because you can't upgrade aside from making the stacks bigger you can't split stacks and you're typically best off just stacking as many of men at arms into an army while leaving all ur peasants at home.
I fully agree with you. Also, on top of everything else, I don't even prefer the Attrition system of CK3 to that of CK2's. I actually wanted to.
Ck2's is a lot more complex and varied, making it much more difficult to plan long campaigns' logistical needs. Just a glance at the wiki for both games in regards to Attrition shows this.
I'm a little confused why Lemon focused on CK3's system so much as if it was a step up and innovative, when it is just a more streamlined and simplified version of the same system.
Eu4 siege are just frustrating
@@Notphenix at least in eu4 you can strategize around breaking the walls, in ck3 your only option is praying that the random chance breakthrough happens twice before you can assault, and on top of that every single county has at least one fort.
Oh, does this mean more Crusader Kings content? Please a couple of CK2 video. I am still bad at the game.
I dunno, I will keep an eye on things but no promises
EU4 sieges while sometimes annoying are way better then the deterministic sieges of Vic2 and CK2 imo. I hate that there is no rng to sieges in those games and that you cant recreate the historically very long sieges irl. From a gameplay perspective knowing 100% when a siege is going to be done is also very boring gameplay. Eu4 sieges>>>>>>>>Vic2&CK2 sieges.
I guess I do see your point, but I prefer to avoid those frustrations personally, although I see why you would argue against it.