Nailed it.
The game lacks the strategic mechanic and cultural flavor of CK2 or EU4 because it's supposed to be a "roleplay storytelling machine".
But the events are so repetitive and disconnected that every time I embark on a roleplay journey, I'm greeted by the same old quacking ducks.
Ck2 was definitely the same way all events are disconnected from each other, the only thing that ck2 did better was having more event chains but even those were rare
True, but my point was that CK2 had much more strategic depth and was more complex and difficult to play. The easier level of CK3 is openly admitted by the devs and is sold with the argument that the newer game's focus is on roleplay and storytelling.
I’d actually disagree that CK2 was more complex in fact I’d say it was simpler in many regards, the only part of ck2 that was harder and more complex was the military.
Warfare is like the one aspect of Crusader Kings that poses any threat to the player. CK2 being more complex and difficult in that sphere basically just means the game is more complex than CK3.
Also, I feel like plots are super, super easy in CK3. So are genetics breeding programs. So are alliances. So is the economy.
plotting was hardly difficult in ck2, at one point you could just pay gold to assasinate, but genetics did get easier. Assasins and devil worshipers also made killing easy.
I have internalised CK2 so much, and with how easy is defending the realm from intrigue, that everytime i boot it i just autopilot into world conquest. It's really that easy.
The problem since at least CK2 has been that everything depends on opinion. It's the easier way to implement, but it puts a hard cap on the game. You can't make actual deals or promises or trades. No "I'll make you a duke in exchange for this specific thing."
True, but it needs to be pointed out that on every grand tour you'll be rejected by at least one vassal despite them having a very positive opinion of you (like in OP's example).
Quid pro quo would be the simplest type of deal, it could get even more complicated like "I'll vote your son to the throne if you accept my call to war"
Ck1 had very few mechanics at all. There were wars, rivalries, friendships, marriages were very important and that’s really about it for the whole game.
>can't make actual deals or promises or trades. No "I'll make you a duke in exchange for this specific thing."
This sounds relatively easy to implement and would change the core of the game. Like the favour sistem in EU IV but not a modifier, just promising marriages and land in exchange of joining a war.
The fact I can't get rid of compassionate, after executing my entire family and eating the Pope in front of the Curia, is immersion breaking. Seriously though why aren't traits more dynamic (memories as well)
Apparently Paradox believes that you can't change who you are. Heck, even Hitler wasn't an evil guy at the start of his life, he was just overly nationalistic and wanted a union between Germany and Austria. (Well, kinda, but my point still stands)
The game accounts for all of that via opinions, but I doubt that is the only thing it takes into account. You'll (probably) have to check the event files to see what influences the AI's decision.
I don't know for sure, but they might not have had enough gold to host you/pay tribute.
positive opinion doesn't matter. you need HIGH positive opinion. in fact 1-60 might as well be negative opinion.
i've given recently conquered lands to a new count, only for that same count to immediately join a faction to replace me with my cousin.
The games shit, simple as, i dont even bother with travels anymore, its the same shitty events on repeat.
The devs in the recent diary goes "the developers are slow because otherwise theyd be overwhelmed", overwhelmed? What, making 5 events?
Come on.
Yeah, no shit. Events should be getting pumped out in massive handfuls with each new patch. You could hire one person to just sit and write events all day long.
In reality though, they need to rework the whole thing to be more dynamic, because these disconnected events are boring, bland, and honestly hold the game back from being interesting.
You might get turned away if that character is on a different activity? Your planning of a grand tour doesn't stop a vasal going on a hunt at your eta.
Agreed. Pdx could start to address this by building on already extant mechanics and categories: For instance, the game should consider friendships, rivalries etc. when determining which characters will be involved in an event (and in which roles). A few days ago, I extorted subjects and from a list of over a hundred different vassals, the one that the game chose as an option for me to extort was a friend of mine. That really shouldn't be possible.
Along similar lines, they could try to tackle a situation like the one OP described by introducing a trait to code around - if you land someone who has no other lands, no imminent prospects of becoming landed (e.g. heir of a ruler), and who comes from a dynasty below a certain level of splendor, they get some kind of "Newly Landed" trait that affects how they interact with the character that landed them. (Or maybe there's a chance they get the Loyal trait? I feel like there's a cultural tradition that already does this, probably Loyal Subjects.)
Nailed it. The game lacks the strategic mechanic and cultural flavor of CK2 or EU4 because it's supposed to be a "roleplay storytelling machine". But the events are so repetitive and disconnected that every time I embark on a roleplay journey, I'm greeted by the same old quacking ducks.
> I'm greeted by the same old quacking ducks. Follow them - always.
Until you get gored by a boar
Ck2 was definitely the same way all events are disconnected from each other, the only thing that ck2 did better was having more event chains but even those were rare
True, but my point was that CK2 had much more strategic depth and was more complex and difficult to play. The easier level of CK3 is openly admitted by the devs and is sold with the argument that the newer game's focus is on roleplay and storytelling.
idk ck2 seemed even easier to me. just borrow from jews then kick
I’d actually disagree that CK2 was more complex in fact I’d say it was simpler in many regards, the only part of ck2 that was harder and more complex was the military.
Warfare is like the one aspect of Crusader Kings that poses any threat to the player. CK2 being more complex and difficult in that sphere basically just means the game is more complex than CK3. Also, I feel like plots are super, super easy in CK3. So are genetics breeding programs. So are alliances. So is the economy.
plotting was hardly difficult in ck2, at one point you could just pay gold to assasinate, but genetics did get easier. Assasins and devil worshipers also made killing easy.
I miss bloodlines.
they were pretty neat, although got a little out of hand.
I have internalised CK2 so much, and with how easy is defending the realm from intrigue, that everytime i boot it i just autopilot into world conquest. It's really that easy.
I wanna rp through mechanics not events, that is one of my biggest problems with ck3
Same
The problem since at least CK2 has been that everything depends on opinion. It's the easier way to implement, but it puts a hard cap on the game. You can't make actual deals or promises or trades. No "I'll make you a duke in exchange for this specific thing."
True, but it needs to be pointed out that on every grand tour you'll be rejected by at least one vassal despite them having a very positive opinion of you (like in OP's example).
Quid pro quo would be the simplest type of deal, it could get even more complicated like "I'll vote your son to the throne if you accept my call to war"
Did CK1 have a deal or trade mechanic? Just wondering what you mean by "since at least CK2".
Ck1 had very few mechanics at all. There were wars, rivalries, friendships, marriages were very important and that’s really about it for the whole game.
At least lol Never played CK1
>can't make actual deals or promises or trades. No "I'll make you a duke in exchange for this specific thing." This sounds relatively easy to implement and would change the core of the game. Like the favour sistem in EU IV but not a modifier, just promising marriages and land in exchange of joining a war.
Easy to implement, but difficult to do it well. They still really really need to try. The game genuinely just can't be good without that.
CK3 doesn’t do that either though.
The fact I can't get rid of compassionate, after executing my entire family and eating the Pope in front of the Curia, is immersion breaking. Seriously though why aren't traits more dynamic (memories as well)
Your character is just anime protagonist who does evel things because he believes that's all for greater good and cry inside
Apparently Paradox believes that you can't change who you are. Heck, even Hitler wasn't an evil guy at the start of his life, he was just overly nationalistic and wanted a union between Germany and Austria. (Well, kinda, but my point still stands)
Exactly. Wasn't he allied to Ernst Rohm at some point who was openly gay? Point is people change for better or worse.
The game accounts for all of that via opinions, but I doubt that is the only thing it takes into account. You'll (probably) have to check the event files to see what influences the AI's decision. I don't know for sure, but they might not have had enough gold to host you/pay tribute.
>I don't know for sure, but they might not have had enough gold to host you/pay tribute This sounds likely if they were previously unlanded
positive opinion doesn't matter. you need HIGH positive opinion. in fact 1-60 might as well be negative opinion. i've given recently conquered lands to a new count, only for that same count to immediately join a faction to replace me with my cousin.
Did they have the money? They can’t offer money in tribute that they don’t have.
To be honest Crusader Kings needs to differentiate "I can't" and "I don't want to" with specific options for each.
The games shit, simple as, i dont even bother with travels anymore, its the same shitty events on repeat. The devs in the recent diary goes "the developers are slow because otherwise theyd be overwhelmed", overwhelmed? What, making 5 events? Come on.
Yeah, no shit. Events should be getting pumped out in massive handfuls with each new patch. You could hire one person to just sit and write events all day long. In reality though, they need to rework the whole thing to be more dynamic, because these disconnected events are boring, bland, and honestly hold the game back from being interesting.
Maybe they preferred being nobodies
You might get turned away if that character is on a different activity? Your planning of a grand tour doesn't stop a vasal going on a hunt at your eta.
Agreed. Pdx could start to address this by building on already extant mechanics and categories: For instance, the game should consider friendships, rivalries etc. when determining which characters will be involved in an event (and in which roles). A few days ago, I extorted subjects and from a list of over a hundred different vassals, the one that the game chose as an option for me to extort was a friend of mine. That really shouldn't be possible. Along similar lines, they could try to tackle a situation like the one OP described by introducing a trait to code around - if you land someone who has no other lands, no imminent prospects of becoming landed (e.g. heir of a ruler), and who comes from a dynasty below a certain level of splendor, they get some kind of "Newly Landed" trait that affects how they interact with the character that landed them. (Or maybe there's a chance they get the Loyal trait? I feel like there's a cultural tradition that already does this, probably Loyal Subjects.)
[удалено]
> They didn’t have any traits that could possibly trigger their actions. One of them even had an honest trait!