It just doesn’t work for me. I don’t really care about music but the vibes I get from CK3 make if feel more like Civ 6 and less of a medieval simulator.
Crusader Kings III
- Thread starter GamerGeeked
- Start date
TBH CK3 just lacks depth right now. It needs serious revamping and expansion for, among other things: bureaucratic governments, merchant republics, the catholic Church, nomads, economy/trade/buildings.... basically everything other than the role-playing elements needs more depth IMO.
I'm also not a fan of the new barony setup.
I'm also not a fan of the new barony setup.
Mainly that it makes the city/temple/castle setup even more glaringly inadequate. In reality cities, castles, and cathedrals were often mixed together and had competing rights and obligations- I'd rather have a single generic holding, with individual rights granted per holding, and the ability to interact simultaneously with eg the Mayor of Paris and bishop of Notre Dame as vassals, while also allowing for the conflict between the burgers in Northern Italy and the church and nobility. Put another way why isn't Italy carpeted with cities everywhere- cities which would variously be held by bishops, local aristocrats, or republican communes throughout the period.
I want to interact with the middle ages as a society, not just as a dynastic RPG.
Played for the first time the other day as Munster in 1066, on the tutorial. I'm hoping intrigue will be easier to grasp than CK2 and things won't degenerate into full blown Revolution by the working masses.
I found playing as the Seljuks difficult on CK2 because of too many rebellious vassals; now I am aware that, when at war with the Byzantines [as Alp Asan] there's no need to conquer the whole Empire, just the provinces that are part of your war goal. I had hoped to have a crack at overthrowing the Abbasids, but said vassals put an end to that plan.
I found playing as the Seljuks difficult on CK2 because of too many rebellious vassals; now I am aware that, when at war with the Byzantines [as Alp Asan] there's no need to conquer the whole Empire, just the provinces that are part of your war goal. I had hoped to have a crack at overthrowing the Abbasids, but said vassals put an end to that plan.
Otto Kretschmer
Banned
With 867 I am preparing Gaelic revenge. I am about to unify Ireland 20 years into the game and then reconquer Wales, Scotland, England and then attack France.
That's an EU IV thing, not Crusader Kings. It's an event that takes place in the 15th or 16th century if you have a succession crisis as England.
I know but it'd be cool if they added it! Especially because of all the RP you could do (which you can't in EU4)
In general I think they need to make EU4 more like CK2. The absence of dynastic trees in EU4 is absurd given the time period it is set in.
I agree. A game set in the time period of EU4 but with CK2's rp and character focus would be really cool.
I kind of wish there was a Peasants Revolt or Hundred Years War start, but that happens towards the end of the game.
Or maybe they could make a new game which is a mix of CK2 and EU4? Maybe call it Renaissance (best title I can come up with), and have in game time stretch from 1300 to sometime in the 1600s, maybe going as far to the 1700s?
Definitely, and the fact that you are unable to reliably pick who you're consort is is ridiculous.. Plus one I miraculously had a 60 year old Queen Regnant of France (they need to add Salic law) somehow have an infant heir a few months after her son died.. I assumed the Rp of it is that it would be her grandson by her dead child..
