Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I worry the most about ck3's mechanical changes. I've been playing Paradox games for nearly two decades now an I feel they've been getting less and less fun to play, mechanically speaking. CK2 hit a magical sweet spot, and that's the reason I've spent more hours playing that than any other game, but I'm not confident in their ability to change things up and still manage to keep in that spot.

[ZeroGravitas]

The fact that they are re-using the EU4 siege mechanic (roll a d20, apply modifiers, look up the result) should tell you all you need to know. They did the same thing with archaeology in Stellaris and it sucks.

My only question if how bad it will be, and if it will be fixable with DLC. I'm more inclined to think it's like Stellaris and Imperator, where they really have nfc what they're doing and are a re-writing core systems in the first year.

Still debating whether I'll buy it day 1. I've skipped Imperator entirely and feeling better and better about it. And I have about ~4500 hours between CK2, EU4, Stellaris, and a few other PDS games.

[Sime]

I'm less excited for the base game of CK3 than I am the ability to mod it. There's plenty of stuff that I've wanted to add to CK2 that just hasn't been feasible.

First thing on the CK3 list? Making schemes active rather than passive. I've always hated how passive that entire system is in CK2, and unfortunately it seems to be the same in CK3- press button, sit back, and wait.

Passive systems are boring and encourage speeding the game up, and leave you with a feeling of not really doing much at all. They can have some purpose, yes, but ideally active systems would be in place when able. Schemes are exactly the sort of place where an active system makes sense. Imagine actually dictating the plot of a murder attempt, utilizing the talents and unique abilities/situations of your accomplices to maximize the potential of the realization of your plot. The potential of getting caught happens upon the actual actions taken by your accomplices, as they attempt to get others involved or set things up accordingly.

Better yet, imagine the actual mechanisms of murder tied to actual interactions that you can have with characters. An invitation to carouse might not be with the best of intentions. Refuse everything out of paranoia, and... well, that paranoia might become reflected in your character.

Instead, we have a "click-and-wait" system with no depth. It doesn't have to be that way.

Agreed, although I  can't claim to understand many of Paradox's 'design' decisions.    I'd much rather play a turn-based CK game in discrete time with denser decision making and I'd imagine that  designing a turn-based game focuses minds on better  game design and facilitates  better AI programming.     Although i can remember that Paradox once justified  the bad AI in CK2 on the grounds that  real medieval dynasties often  made stupid decisions, in spite of them basing the game on the central premise of gaining power through  claim forging, which was historically rare.     Surely everyone at the time was making a claim who had even the remotest possibility of succeeding, so the likelihood of  a claim being successful was practically zero unless one was related to a relatively important and not too distant ancestor  and/or  was the leader of an important political cause.

[Telgin]

I haven't looked at CK3's details at all, but the whole passivity of CK2 really kills it for me and I've never been able to get into it or have any fun playing it.  I was incessantly getting the feeling that I was doing something wrong, because 99% of the time I was just staring at the map screen and wondering what I was supposed to be doing.  Most decisions were event or timing based, like arranging marriages or betrothals, or passive like plotting to murder someone or forge a claim, both of which at least felt like they relied on luck instead of much planning or activity on my part.

[EuchreJack]

Uh, the original Crusader Kings was way, way, way worse with the passivity.  In CK2, I can at least tell a counselor to "Forge a claim here".  In the original Crusader Kings, you just had to wait till the game gave you a seemingly random claim.  And the hard part with the original is that most things were not really that random, but undocumented in-game.  Its a core game mechanic.
...and there are mods to fix it.

EDIT: Just wanted to point out the flaw with Stellaris, and why it's not fatal to Paradox Studios: There is no historical setup in space.  Look at all their good games.  They have a fixed start.  Maybe, just maybe, someone at Paradox can take the random scenario generator from Crusader Kings 2 and apply it to Stellaris so that players can start as an established empire instead of having to research "space stuff for dummies" every single time.  And if that miracle should happen, they might be able figure out how to make it fun to play as a vassal or a single-system empire like with their other games.  Even without a random scenario where large parts of the map are established, they could salvage Stellaris if they create a fixed start with large, established empires that the player can play.  But I worry someone is obsessed with creating the best 4x space game instead of a game they actually have the talent to make.  Frankly, my opinion is that they're going to just give up soon.

[Telgin]

I never played the original Crusader Kings, so I don't have it as a point of reference.  I can imagine it's worse though.

Stellaris feels like a very different game, and while they're actually attempting something like that in the next DLC where you can start as a vassal of a Fallen Empire, I'm sure the intention will be to break free one day and go conquer the galaxy.  On the subject of Stellaris though, I will say that while people give it grief for also being boring, but the micro does at least keep my attention.

[Kanil]

Uh, the original Crusader Kings was way, way, way worse with the passivity.  In CK2, I can at least tell a counselor to "Forge a claim here".  In the original Crusader Kings, you just had to wait till the game gave you a seemingly random claim.

I haven't played CK1 since CK2 came out, so I don't remember just how passive it was, but I do remember that you could a fabricate claim to pretty much anything on-demand by spending prestige, with no waiting for random chance.

As for how passive CK2 is, well it depends on what you want to be doing. If you pick a horde and set your goal to conquer the world, you're really not gonna have any down time what-so-ever. However I don't think world conquest (or even making your "nation" stronger) is really the most enjoyable thing about CK2. There's more to the game than map painting in a way that most Paradox games lack, so simply hanging around until something happens can still be enjoyable... but I can appreciate that it's not for everyone.

[ZeroGravitas]

CK2 feels passive because all your options are hidden. Who should you be trying to kill, can you ask the Pope for a claim somewhere, who should your kids be marrying, when can you change a law, who should you move around on your council, etc?

Playing "well" relies on having near omniscience of a thousands different characters, numbers, timers, etc. The more you're willing to look around at everything, the more there is to do. Unfortunately, most of that is relatively boring in terms of game play. It's just clicking through tons of characters looking for opportunities.

[Cruxador]

When you put it like that, I wonder how much the game's accessibility could be improved if your council would talk to you like the advisors of early civ games and go "here's an opportunity you might have missed".

[PTTG??]

When you put it like that, I wonder how much the game's accessibility could be improved if your council would talk to you like the advisors of early civ games and go "here's an opportunity you might have missed".

The temptation of subverting this useful element by making it so dissatisfied or ignorant councilors would give you bad advice is strong. It's not good design, but on the other hand, if your martial hates your guts and suggests you invade a neighboring province, would most players really trust him right off the bat?

[scourge728]

That really depends on the U.I they use for it, since if they used something like CIV 5's ui I would probably trust it

[ZeroGravitas]

See, sometimes CK2 does this well, like with the Imprisonment alert: "HEY CLICK HERE THERE'S SOMEONE YOU HAVE A REASON TO IMPRISON" and the pressable claim alert.

But it was never really extended beyond key things like "hey if you die now youre going to lose the game" and "hey youre not married, you should probably be married."

Something more like the EU4 diplomatic macrobuilder makes more sense, especially for papal claims.

[Cruxador]

When you put it like that, I wonder how much the game's accessibility could be improved if your council would talk to you like the advisors of early civ games and go "here's an opportunity you might have missed".

The temptation of subverting this useful element by making it so dissatisfied or ignorant councilors would give you bad advice is strong. It's not good design, but on the other hand, if your martial hates your guts and suggests you invade a neighboring province, would most players really trust him right off the bat?

I don't think it would be a problem, since it's clear that they're supposed to be characters with their own agendas and level of competence. In that sense, perhaps making them more like the council in King of Dragon Pass and Six Ages would be more appropriate, and wouldn't really interfere (much) with the function of letting you know about things you might have missed. Even if their advice is bad, they're still bringing the situation to your attention.

[scriver]

Our dreams of playing cannibals catholics will finally come true

[martinuzz]

Aren't all catholics cannibals? They eat the body of christ, right?