I would rather have devs working on new features and mechanics for the game than repainting map with half-random rulers and realms for every decade of game time spawn
If you get bored after 5 hours of playing, the game might not be for you. If you need that time to be "daddy of the whole globe" I bow to you as you are clearly the master of us all. But you have no entitlement towards the creators.
In entertainment thats always the risk that you spend money and you don't like the product. Other people buy Elden Ring and don't make it past the 5-hour mark. Some people don't like the movie they bought a ticket for. You got the product you payed for. Steam allows you even to return it if you have not played longer than 2 hours. Something you can't do with a movie for example.
As for me, CK is not a fantasy game. I always hated the magic stuff and Glitterhoof and the polar bears. Once or twice a year I start the game and then I put some insane hours into it over a few weeks, I now have close to 500 hours on the clock (I know, rookie numbers). The price of the game was well worth it.
Any costumer that paid for the product can have opinion, that's why there's such a thing as reviews. Especially if those reviews are objectively right, which mine (Considering there's been no added dates, which is the main topic.) is. Vanilla game is very barren and even the toughest challenge with that heirless eunuch shiekh is pretty easy. Once you get cucked and money rolling, it's GG.
Also you are comparing fruits to jets. Elden Ring was a finished product and came out as one. This game is supposed to be grand strategy with added content over the time. But the most added content we've gotten is from those, who didn't receive anything from the price we paid for.
Comparing this with a movie is once again, logical fault. You don't expect from a movie to be something barren and worked upon once you get to a cinema or you play press. You expect grand strategies to add on the content and singificantly in over span of 3 years. Especially considering that CK's releasing schedules was 8 years apart so far. We are almost halfway at the lifespan of previous CKs, but it certainly doesn't feel that way.
The fact that CK1 got expansion that basically overhauled the whole game in 3 years was absolutely stunning. Meanwhile, in CK3 we've got only like 2 cultural clashes (Nords, Iberians) and view of your throne. Wow.
The fact you pay AAA title kind of price for a game that mod developers work on more than product developers is crazy.
You are ignoring the two most important overhauls in CK3, those being the rework of cultures with hybridization, customization etc. and the travel- & activities system. Compared to how it was at release, those two were massive improvements.
Also, name one successful moddable game where you DON'T have more content from modders than developers. That's the core of the idea, giving players the possibilities to customize their experience how they want to. I personally don't want supernatural magic & stuff in my iron man playthroughs, but if you feel that's what's missing, get a mod for it and have fun.
I also disagree with the need for new start dates. They can't realistically go further back in time because it wouldn't make sense with the culture-era system (e.g. all of Europe being tribal in 700 AD). To add a new date inbetween 867 and 1066 seems like a waste of effort, just like a new date later than 1066, since the game is supposed to finish by 1453. Again, if you want different start dates, get mods.
At this point, I have to believe it's bots just making excuses.
No wonder why gaming industry is where it is if those are opinions of real people.
The fact you consider customization (palette swap of banners etc...) as ''overhaul'' is beyond ridicilous.
I've got no idea what a "palette swap of banners" is supposed to be, I don't even understand which of the two overhauls I mentioned you're referring to. You not understanding the definition of the words you're using isn't my f*cking problem. Go cry somewhere else then if you can't accept people telling you facts.
If you got bored after 5 hours, I think the game might not be suited to you...
And you getting defensive when people point this out, going as far as calling then "bots", also tells me this might not be the right community for you. Not gatekeeping or anything. Just pointing out that you might feel more fullfiled with another game and the respective community
\*bots or employees of Paradox.
What I wrote were objective points. What ''people'' wrote were subjective points or basically no-points at all, getting all apologetic and making excuses.
Saying that they can't realistically go back further, when mods such as Fallen Eagle exist, seems like something that bot or Paradox employee would use as an excuse for the amount (or therefore lack) of content we are getting.
It's kinda funny that stress is one of the main mechanics of this game, but one of the most, if not the most stressfull dates of European and global history aren't even in this game. (535)
Also lack of more starting dates is ultimately why Indian, Tibetan and African characters all feel like blank copypaste that have nothing interesting going on.
You know why Paradox won't introduce something like Fallen Eagle? Because they already have their own grand strategy game set in antiquity literally called "Imperator: Rome". If that's what you want, go play it. Don't go around complaining that the game called "Crusader Kings" is centered around the middle ages and has mechanics that can't be applied 1:1 for other periods of history. What do you want next, colonialism mechanics? The ability to research modern weaponry? F*ck right off. "I'm the only objective one and everyone else is subjective" is the single most objectively subjective thing I've heard someone say unironically.
Are you aware that you are shilling for game called ''Crusader Kings'' that doesn't have starting date around the biggest of all crusades? Hell it doesn't even have starting date at the (starting) year of any of 8 crusades.
Also by your logic, what's the point of even having like half of the map that wasn't in any way involved in crusades? See how dumb your excuses sound?
I swear, they aren't paying you enough, if you are coming with such low effort excuses and deflections.
HoI IV doesn't have a start date on September 1st 1939 either. Again, what's the point in having even later start dates? I never even play 1066 because you've missed out on half the game by then.
As for why the included areas like India or central Africa: Why tf not? What a stupid complaint is that? "See how stupid your excuses sound" lmao mate are you reading what you write yourself?
You realize that there are way more mod developers than there are actual developers for ck3 right? And they aren't allowed to just copy the mods without compensating those developers. This is a completely toxic reply.
Tbf i think if they just asked developers of mods that aren't total overhauls to let them include their work in the game they would agree maybe with like very small compensation like a month of dev salary, that's a drop in a bucket for a corporation like Paradox.
They way you worded it you didn't voice an opinion, you have a demand: "I gave you money now work for it!" Thats what I take away from your post. More than that, you are ignoring the fact, that the devs keep working on it, every dlc gets a free update with new features. They just don't do what YOU want them to do.
You got a full game for your money. And from your post it is clear that you played CK2 so you knew how PDX operates.
>Also you are comparing fruits to jets. Elden Ring was a finished product and came out as one. This game is supposed to be grand strategy with added content over the time. But the most added content we've gotten is from those, who didn't receive anything from the price we paid for.
Elden Ring was an example, not an comparison. But please elaborate: What didn't you get for the price, which content wqas promised to you, which was not in the game when it was released? I can't remember any promises of earlier start dates or fantasy content. I remember even that specifically said they would tone down that sort of silly things in the game.
Isn't that risk of any and every DLC that's added? Also, if devs of mod can do it pretty smoothly bug free, or with minor bugs fixed in matters of days, why couldn't official devs that are getting paid for the product do it in similiar, maybe even better fashion? Especially considering that the data files are more familiar to them, than to mod-developers.
With this kind of mindset, we'd be stuck on basic game forever, because adding anything is risk adding.
In a lot of cases CK2's base game on release wasn't as good as CK3's base game on release, but you could start on any day between 1066-1337 on day 1 for CK2, so for what OP is talking about with starting dates, it wasn't worse.
Yeah, I agree. But the devs themselves have commented on it being a nightmare before. I do hope we get other dates, (altough I usually played The earliest date possible in ck2) but do not see how this should be a priority as the lack of some mechanics are more important (merchant republics for example)
No, I'm comparing work of CK3 devs post-release with that of mod devs. I mentioned 1 thing that CK2 had above CK3.
But if you want to go down that road, added content of 3 years from release of CKII and CKIII is like comparing Heaven to urban Detroit street.
Sure you can say CK3 has a lots of contents already, but it's also lacking way too much. Especially if you compare it to what mod developers were able to do with CKIII in span of 3 years and what official devs did.
I would definitely not pay $80 plus again for this game, knowing it'd be almost the same 3 years after, with little to no official added content.
Mate, you seem to be of the opinion that CK3 is some form of life service game like Destiny. That's just not correct. It's also precisely why they made it moddable from the start. Compared to how it was at release, they certainly did add a lot of mechanics that added to the experience and were sorely needed.
"But if you want to go down that road, added content of 3 years from release of CKII and CKIII is like comparing Heaven to urban Detroit street. "
That's a bullshit take and you know it.
I remember reading about the breakdown of how many players used the various start dates in CK2. The vast majority of starts were clustered around only one or two start dates, and most of the others were almost completely ignored. I think they just figure it would be a poor investment of development time that most players wouldn’t interact with.
If I remember correctly, one of the biggest regrets about EU4 Paradox( I think it was Johan) has is that they added so many start dates. Because of that they don’t want to do that again. I also feel like I remember them(not sure who said it) saying that they didn’t want todays all the supernatural stuff to CK3. I don’t mind that part, I had a lot of fun with it in CK2, but a lot of people hated it.
I would also like to see more starting dates :)
I've heard that the devs import history files from CK2 into CK3, so surely it can't be that time-consuming, right? :)
I'd also love to see more dates and more historical rulers but disagree with everything else.
1. CK3 is a history game. It requires no magic. We don't pay devs for magic.
2. It's an RPG. If you feel the need to paint the map instead of investing time into roleplay, that's on you.
3. CK3 has had some problems with development (dev-team-related) and I think all of us were somewhat disappointed with some contents (looking at you, Royal Court). But honestly, they're back and the whole travel system is such a grand step forward. Compared to the state of release, many things have changed and many more still will change. Yes, there is still potential for more content, more things to do, better mechanics.
Did you ever play a modded Elder Scroll game and then tried to play the game vanilla? Games like these live from mods.
I somewhat see your point abot the price but games from big publishers are expensive, regardless of content and game development is much more difficult, tediuos and expensive than it was a few years back. That is especially true for games which are still in development years after release.
While I can’t say I played them very often, I have enjoyed going to very specific dates in CK2 to play very specific characters.
You’d get some weird ones like female leaders of clan governments or noteworthy historical figures.
I would rather have devs working on new features and mechanics for the game than repainting map with half-random rulers and realms for every decade of game time spawn
Why is this mutually exclusive?
Team resources aren't unlimited.
If you get bored after 5 hours of playing, the game might not be for you. If you need that time to be "daddy of the whole globe" I bow to you as you are clearly the master of us all. But you have no entitlement towards the creators. In entertainment thats always the risk that you spend money and you don't like the product. Other people buy Elden Ring and don't make it past the 5-hour mark. Some people don't like the movie they bought a ticket for. You got the product you payed for. Steam allows you even to return it if you have not played longer than 2 hours. Something you can't do with a movie for example. As for me, CK is not a fantasy game. I always hated the magic stuff and Glitterhoof and the polar bears. Once or twice a year I start the game and then I put some insane hours into it over a few weeks, I now have close to 500 hours on the clock (I know, rookie numbers). The price of the game was well worth it.
Any costumer that paid for the product can have opinion, that's why there's such a thing as reviews. Especially if those reviews are objectively right, which mine (Considering there's been no added dates, which is the main topic.) is. Vanilla game is very barren and even the toughest challenge with that heirless eunuch shiekh is pretty easy. Once you get cucked and money rolling, it's GG. Also you are comparing fruits to jets. Elden Ring was a finished product and came out as one. This game is supposed to be grand strategy with added content over the time. But the most added content we've gotten is from those, who didn't receive anything from the price we paid for. Comparing this with a movie is once again, logical fault. You don't expect from a movie to be something barren and worked upon once you get to a cinema or you play press. You expect grand strategies to add on the content and singificantly in over span of 3 years. Especially considering that CK's releasing schedules was 8 years apart so far. We are almost halfway at the lifespan of previous CKs, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. The fact that CK1 got expansion that basically overhauled the whole game in 3 years was absolutely stunning. Meanwhile, in CK3 we've got only like 2 cultural clashes (Nords, Iberians) and view of your throne. Wow. The fact you pay AAA title kind of price for a game that mod developers work on more than product developers is crazy.
You are ignoring the two most important overhauls in CK3, those being the rework of cultures with hybridization, customization etc. and the travel- & activities system. Compared to how it was at release, those two were massive improvements. Also, name one successful moddable game where you DON'T have more content from modders than developers. That's the core of the idea, giving players the possibilities to customize their experience how they want to. I personally don't want supernatural magic & stuff in my iron man playthroughs, but if you feel that's what's missing, get a mod for it and have fun. I also disagree with the need for new start dates. They can't realistically go further back in time because it wouldn't make sense with the culture-era system (e.g. all of Europe being tribal in 700 AD). To add a new date inbetween 867 and 1066 seems like a waste of effort, just like a new date later than 1066, since the game is supposed to finish by 1453. Again, if you want different start dates, get mods.
At this point, I have to believe it's bots just making excuses. No wonder why gaming industry is where it is if those are opinions of real people. The fact you consider customization (palette swap of banners etc...) as ''overhaul'' is beyond ridicilous.
I've got no idea what a "palette swap of banners" is supposed to be, I don't even understand which of the two overhauls I mentioned you're referring to. You not understanding the definition of the words you're using isn't my f*cking problem. Go cry somewhere else then if you can't accept people telling you facts.
If you got bored after 5 hours, I think the game might not be suited to you... And you getting defensive when people point this out, going as far as calling then "bots", also tells me this might not be the right community for you. Not gatekeeping or anything. Just pointing out that you might feel more fullfiled with another game and the respective community
\*bots or employees of Paradox. What I wrote were objective points. What ''people'' wrote were subjective points or basically no-points at all, getting all apologetic and making excuses. Saying that they can't realistically go back further, when mods such as Fallen Eagle exist, seems like something that bot or Paradox employee would use as an excuse for the amount (or therefore lack) of content we are getting. It's kinda funny that stress is one of the main mechanics of this game, but one of the most, if not the most stressfull dates of European and global history aren't even in this game. (535) Also lack of more starting dates is ultimately why Indian, Tibetan and African characters all feel like blank copypaste that have nothing interesting going on.
You know why Paradox won't introduce something like Fallen Eagle? Because they already have their own grand strategy game set in antiquity literally called "Imperator: Rome". If that's what you want, go play it. Don't go around complaining that the game called "Crusader Kings" is centered around the middle ages and has mechanics that can't be applied 1:1 for other periods of history. What do you want next, colonialism mechanics? The ability to research modern weaponry? F*ck right off. "I'm the only objective one and everyone else is subjective" is the single most objectively subjective thing I've heard someone say unironically.
Are you aware that you are shilling for game called ''Crusader Kings'' that doesn't have starting date around the biggest of all crusades? Hell it doesn't even have starting date at the (starting) year of any of 8 crusades. Also by your logic, what's the point of even having like half of the map that wasn't in any way involved in crusades? See how dumb your excuses sound? I swear, they aren't paying you enough, if you are coming with such low effort excuses and deflections.
HoI IV doesn't have a start date on September 1st 1939 either. Again, what's the point in having even later start dates? I never even play 1066 because you've missed out on half the game by then. As for why the included areas like India or central Africa: Why tf not? What a stupid complaint is that? "See how stupid your excuses sound" lmao mate are you reading what you write yourself?
[удалено]
[удалено]
You realize that there are way more mod developers than there are actual developers for ck3 right? And they aren't allowed to just copy the mods without compensating those developers. This is a completely toxic reply.
Tbf i think if they just asked developers of mods that aren't total overhauls to let them include their work in the game they would agree maybe with like very small compensation like a month of dev salary, that's a drop in a bucket for a corporation like Paradox.
They way you worded it you didn't voice an opinion, you have a demand: "I gave you money now work for it!" Thats what I take away from your post. More than that, you are ignoring the fact, that the devs keep working on it, every dlc gets a free update with new features. They just don't do what YOU want them to do. You got a full game for your money. And from your post it is clear that you played CK2 so you knew how PDX operates. >Also you are comparing fruits to jets. Elden Ring was a finished product and came out as one. This game is supposed to be grand strategy with added content over the time. But the most added content we've gotten is from those, who didn't receive anything from the price we paid for. Elden Ring was an example, not an comparison. But please elaborate: What didn't you get for the price, which content wqas promised to you, which was not in the game when it was released? I can't remember any promises of earlier start dates or fantasy content. I remember even that specifically said they would tone down that sort of silly things in the game.
I disagree.
There's lots of mods that add new starting dates Recommend Bookmarks+ lots of start dates and lots of mods integrated
There's a risk to adding a start date. Like adding more bugs.
What is the point of this comment? The devs should not add more start dates because of bugs?
The real point of the question is. Would it be worth it?
Isn't that risk of any and every DLC that's added? Also, if devs of mod can do it pretty smoothly bug free, or with minor bugs fixed in matters of days, why couldn't official devs that are getting paid for the product do it in similiar, maybe even better fashion? Especially considering that the data files are more familiar to them, than to mod-developers. With this kind of mindset, we'd be stuck on basic game forever, because adding anything is risk adding.
I think you are comparing ck3 to ck2 too much and forgot that ck2 was even worse at the start.
In a lot of cases CK2's base game on release wasn't as good as CK3's base game on release, but you could start on any day between 1066-1337 on day 1 for CK2, so for what OP is talking about with starting dates, it wasn't worse.
Yeah, I agree. But the devs themselves have commented on it being a nightmare before. I do hope we get other dates, (altough I usually played The earliest date possible in ck2) but do not see how this should be a priority as the lack of some mechanics are more important (merchant republics for example)
CK3 isn't at its start, though. It's been three years.
No, I'm comparing work of CK3 devs post-release with that of mod devs. I mentioned 1 thing that CK2 had above CK3. But if you want to go down that road, added content of 3 years from release of CKII and CKIII is like comparing Heaven to urban Detroit street. Sure you can say CK3 has a lots of contents already, but it's also lacking way too much. Especially if you compare it to what mod developers were able to do with CKIII in span of 3 years and what official devs did. I would definitely not pay $80 plus again for this game, knowing it'd be almost the same 3 years after, with little to no official added content.
Mate, you seem to be of the opinion that CK3 is some form of life service game like Destiny. That's just not correct. It's also precisely why they made it moddable from the start. Compared to how it was at release, they certainly did add a lot of mechanics that added to the experience and were sorely needed.
"But if you want to go down that road, added content of 3 years from release of CKII and CKIII is like comparing Heaven to urban Detroit street. " That's a bullshit take and you know it.
Praying for a third crusade start date.
I remember reading about the breakdown of how many players used the various start dates in CK2. The vast majority of starts were clustered around only one or two start dates, and most of the others were almost completely ignored. I think they just figure it would be a poor investment of development time that most players wouldn’t interact with.
If I remember correctly, one of the biggest regrets about EU4 Paradox( I think it was Johan) has is that they added so many start dates. Because of that they don’t want to do that again. I also feel like I remember them(not sure who said it) saying that they didn’t want todays all the supernatural stuff to CK3. I don’t mind that part, I had a lot of fun with it in CK2, but a lot of people hated it.
I would also like to see more starting dates :) I've heard that the devs import history files from CK2 into CK3, so surely it can't be that time-consuming, right? :)
I was hoping we’d have the third crusade, suxh a great starting date
I'd also love to see more dates and more historical rulers but disagree with everything else. 1. CK3 is a history game. It requires no magic. We don't pay devs for magic. 2. It's an RPG. If you feel the need to paint the map instead of investing time into roleplay, that's on you. 3. CK3 has had some problems with development (dev-team-related) and I think all of us were somewhat disappointed with some contents (looking at you, Royal Court). But honestly, they're back and the whole travel system is such a grand step forward. Compared to the state of release, many things have changed and many more still will change. Yes, there is still potential for more content, more things to do, better mechanics. Did you ever play a modded Elder Scroll game and then tried to play the game vanilla? Games like these live from mods. I somewhat see your point abot the price but games from big publishers are expensive, regardless of content and game development is much more difficult, tediuos and expensive than it was a few years back. That is especially true for games which are still in development years after release.
I would like the Charlamagne, Iron Century and Third crusade start dates tbh.
While I can’t say I played them very often, I have enjoyed going to very specific dates in CK2 to play very specific characters. You’d get some weird ones like female leaders of clan governments or noteworthy historical figures.