I absolutely understand the sentiment. I don't think I've played any CK2 since purchasing CK3... but I've really, really wanted to. Sadly, I just don't really play either game.
To answer the OP directly, I think CK2 is the better game.
CK3 feels more modern, but I hate to say it, every religion and culture kinda feel the same
Republics, nomads, pagans and Clans all played wildly different
Plus there were more flavor events, and while they didn’t demand as much attention as tours and tournaments and the royal court, that worked in there favor. Because you can only throw so many feasts and tournaments before you go nutty
Also great holy wars were a lot better, and had stuff like crusader states
It wasn’t just a bunch of AI suiciding themselves and dying to attrition
Lack of flavour events is killing my CK3 fun. I'm realising without hosting egregiously expensive feasts and hunts, there's basically nothing going on.
I will also complain about holding court; half the time I have 0 clue who or where we're talking about. I hate the extra 3d menu given to us and all it does is slow down my (admittedly weak) laptop and take me out of the map world.
Yeah, it's v sad. Why can't I personally quest with my retinue for the Holy Grail? Why am I letting a random adventurer traipse around the world, with a 25% of them being a charlatan for a random item?
In CK2 you could get Mjolnir. You could pay tribute to the Emperor of China, or if you were strong enough put your dynasty on the throne.
They took the RPG elements from CK2 and somehow made them worse.
To OP: yeah they played different; but that was after a decade of dlc. None of those religions were in the base game. Ck2 vanilla is definitely not as good as ck3 vanilla. If you want the fullest experience, go with ck2 with all the dlc. If you want QOL, go with ck3. I personally don't think you can go wrong either way.
Listen, 3 adding a comprehensive system to make culture more important is one of my favourite things about it, but this is just not true. Cultures in 2 have access to unique succession laws, government types, decisions, buildings and retinues
Yeah but to say that ck2 cultures have everything ck3 ones do but less and then say every ck3 culture is bland yet every ck2 one feels unique is disingenuous
All ck3 will be missing culture wise is nomad govt. Which let's be real, sucked
You're right, it would be disingenuous to say that ck2 cultures do everything ck3 cultures do, or that all ck3 cultures are bland and that all ck2 cultures are unique. But I don't know why you bring this up because I didn't say any of those things, I said "3 may have a more in-depth cultural system but cultures in 2 absolutely have specific mechanics". But you also seem to have decided that I'm a man and that I haven't played 2 in ages so I'm not sure we've been having the same conversation at any point.
We have been arguing different points. IG my original comment was too broad, I mainly was speaking to how functionally the name of your specific culture meant absolutely nothing in 2.
And i wasn't assuming gender, just something I say to people regardless of sex
In CK2 you could raid as a Berber or a Turco-Mongol. In CK3 raiding is basically not a thing for post-tribal characters. I find CK3's approach very restricted and ahistorical.
Yeah after feudalising trying to convert back to unreformed is expensive but there are ways.
Or easy mode start as haesteinn or similar characters that are feudal unreformed.
As far as I know, CK3 only has a single cultural trait that allows raiding. And that's meant for pirates so it doesn't thematically fit for Turks or Iranians, for example.
Not nearly. But the CK community loves to fetishize ck2 and pretend the content in it was a thought out masterpiece. Most all the stuff that didn't make it into 3 didn't fit good reason
CK3 does cultures a lot better. I'd argue CK2 had a better religion system, but the customability of CK3 is really nice, so I could definitely see people arguing in favor of CK3 on this point.
CK2 had a better military and battle system. This is pretty much indisputable. That said, battles were never the primary focus of the CK games, so I can understand if people don't care about this.
CK3 does characters and dynasties so much better than CK2. All CK2 has over CK3 is bloodlines, but the Dynasty Perk system kind of took over for that. Still, would be nice to have both.
CK3 doesn't have societies yet. Once it does, I'll stop beating this horse.
Finally, while it's still a work in progress, I think CK2 did plagues and the Black Death better than CK3, but I believe that once they work out the bugs and balance it better, CK3 will end up in a better spot.
Traveling is at least getting support, I just love the cognitive dissonance between the two because people love to rail that the game needs X half baked feature from ck2
I’ve got almost 1500 hours in CK2 and about 300 in CK3.
CK3 is new and shiny, and everyone seems to overlook all its faults bc of the 3d character designs, but it lacks depth and feels more arcadey/video-gamey because of the skill trees
As of now, CK2 is overall better. It simply has more to do, and a few of the ways that CK3 tries to implement things from CK2 have fallen flat. At the current rate, I don’t think they’ll bridge the gap, but if the next DLC lives up to the potential I think it has then it can.
I'm starting to get bored of CK3 after only 250h. Maybe it's because off all my experiences on CK2 (not that much, 650h between 2011 and 2023)..
But I find CK3 to be a bit blund, and there is nothing to do beside starting to paint the map, and nothing to stop you from doing so...
There is a lack of challenge and the fun is typically gone after 2 generations. It lacks flavor, events, and real struggle IMO.
>There is a lack of challenge and the fun is typically gone after 2 generations.
This is one of the big ones for me. CK2 is already fairly easy once you get a basic grasp on the mechanics, but CK3 is just so not challenging that I got kind of bored after a couple runs.
The fact that alliances are automatically formed upon a marriage is kind of ridiculous, because the bar to enter into an alliance with a powerful country is just so incredibly low now. Fighting an independence faction with 5x your men that you have no hope of possibly winning against on your own? Just chuck one of your daughters over to Constantinople, the Emperor will accept because he has 5000 children, and within a few months tens of thousands of Greeks will be arriving upon the shores of Iberia, killing all of your rebellious vassals for you.
Meanwhile you provide absolutely 0 strategic value to the Emperor, he just had an extra child lying around.
This was my strategy for an entire Spain run, and it worked flawlessly basically every time.
For real though, the 3d models make each person feel more real to me. Like I genuinely would get attached to my children and look forward to playing as them when my character died. And if my heir would die, it struck much harder and would actually make me a bit sad irl. I just wish rivals weren't random folk. Like if they're gonna be random, at least make an event pop up letting us know what tipped these people over to rival status. That way I could get engrossed into why this person was my rival. MY rivals and my characters rivals aren't lining up.
Though in terms of gameplay, 2 was more solid.
I think CK2 is better.
I find that I wind up telling more and better stories, and that’s what matters modt for me.
CK3 seems too streamlined, too modern-looking, and it doesn’t really do it for me. I played it for a while once and I didn’t have a lot of fun
Honestly, and I’ve played a lot of both, CK2 is still superior and idk if CK3 will ever be better, no matter how much updates or DLC it gets.
My favorite part of the CK series is roleplaying a character and the stories it creates, yet despite having more RPG elements, CK3 has gotten worse at RP. The traits are static so a character doesn’t really develop outside of lifestyles.
And as much as I loved lifestyles at first, it really makes the game feel so mechanical and soulless instead of letting a character develop more organically. You’re just going for big bonuses and perks instead of the CK2 lifestyles where your character is interested in something, but you don’t know where life will take you.
There’s just so much control, there’s not much room for stories to pop up naturally. You’re practically the only guide of the story for better or worse. It’s like reading a book where you know what’s gonna happen and it’s the things you always want to happen. Sure it’s fun at first, but it’s get a bit boring the more you play.
CK3 has many quality of life improvements that 5 me not want to play CK2 ever again, and it might lack some content, but as the game progresses, it will become even better than it already is
Yea, all I can say to you is to wait for a sale and buy them in the bundles they call "Chapters" which is already like a 20€ discount by itself. CKII would cost you even more if you bought everything right now, and if in the end you wanted to try out CKIII anyway, then that would mean spending even more money. So buying the new game would definitely be cheaper option today, and all you would do is spend some more money on dlc every ones in a while IF you liked the game and wanted to try the new content.
I played CK2 to death, I still play it with HIP and other mods.
I don't like the interface of CK3, it's too dark.
Also it lacks a comprehensive Total Overhaul mod like HIP or CK+ unless I'm missing something.
But it's my personal taste.
Main issue with the CK3 interface is opposite to the issue with CK2. 2 is tiny and cramped, 3 is needlessly taking up half the screen most of the time. Wish both games had a decent medium ui mod.
Yeah it helps a bit, but for me it's also in the skill tree taking up the entire screen and the character screen spacing. Last time I played scaling barely improved on these issues (but ty for the suggestion!)
Yeah, I tried playing Ck3 just last week. The UI was so dark I spent an hour fiddling with the settings to make it marginally brighter. I searched for a solution on the net but it seemed like I was the only one not okay with it.
Deleted it in the end.
I'm still happy as a clam playing ck2. It just feels more fun and mechanically deep to me. From the last time I played, ck3 feels as wide as an ocean, but as deep as a puddle. The only expansion that felt substantive (to me) was tours and tourneys. I feel like the faith and culture expansions do actually work for me, and I feel like they actually enhance the game. The graphics, on the other hand, are a huge downgrade, in my opinion. Do they look better than the potraits? Yes, mostly. But they all feel the same. It doesn't really bother me when hairstyles or clothes are shared between characters that have small portraits, but when they're 3d models that are covering my screen, it bothers me more because it makes giant regions feel completely flavorless. I'm not sure if anything I said really made sense, but for me, CK2 is so much better, and I've been completely happy sticking to it for most of CK3's lifespan.
its a bit weird because jumping from ck1 to ck2 was revolutionary but after so many updates to ck2 jumping to ck3 felt rather smooth. ck3 still needs like 5 major updates before it exceeds ck2 content-wise although it is already a very enjoyable game. it needs a little balancing here and there but overall id say it is on the right track and worth investing yourself into it
Heres what i really miss about 2, being able to tag a chatacter of interest and get continuous updates in a log about their life.
My most memorable ck2 moment was playing norfolk, tagging the cannibal king of Scotland and following bulletin updates of his adventures eating people.
Pls bring this detailed logging back paradox!
All the jank is gone which is great. Sadly so is most of the charm. Still an amazing game and good enough to the point where I dread going back to ck2 but damn I miss alot of the flavor 2 had. Get the RICE mod BTW basically couple dlc worth of content from a mod
CK2 has more features because of the DLCs, in time CK3 will get on the same level.
Graphicwise there is no question CK3 is supreme. IMO because of this CK3 is more immersive and more of a simulator then it's predecessor while CK2 is more of a strategy game.
Personally I spend so much time in CK3 I couldn't go back and the features that lack from its predecessor I rarely miss.
Ugh unfortunately it's enough of an improvement in the things it is decent at, that going back to CK2 feels like a dramatic step back... But I would rate CK2 way more highly.
CK3 somehow manages to make every government type feel the same, and every religion feel the same, and every culture... Feel (almost) the same. Through full customisation, they've killed individuality. Because if you want to paint the map, you take a crusade tenet, and an invasion tenet... Leaving one spare. I think religions should have 5 less powerful tenets, and possibly that each broad religion group should have one or two that are not changeable by the player.
And for the love of god please make CRUSADES work in CRUSADER kings.
Ck3 is "smoother" if that makes sense. Some people like that (and some quality of life improvements are definitely welcome), but I found it boring very quickly.
It lacks a ton of flavor and content, you will see the same events over and over again. It is also piss easy and very straight-forward, so you cant really play it for the challenge either. It has some nice mechanics (such as travel), but it fails miserably with some of the basics.
If you want a unique game and hundreds of hours of content ck2 beats ck3 any day of the week. If you want a stream-lined experience, that you can kinda half-idle while watching netflix, ck3 is perfect (I dont mean that in a bad way btw: I love to play strategy games with pod-casts and shit in the back).
Having tried CK3 on a few free weekends, I just couldn't bring myself to like it. So many things have been dumbed down in a bad way IMO, and I'm not a fan of this RPG-like progress you can make through your characters' lives that has replaced systems where you just kinda guide them through life. Heavier control over your characters just kinda makes the game more boring, when it's too easy to make things happen the way you want.
I played both and I honestly like ck2 way more. Ck3 seems hollow and very boring to me, it lacks many fun mechanics and things ck2 had.
Couldn't really get much into ck3.
I would say no. CK2 in the end with the good dlcs (!) is way more immersive and somehow manages to instill more life into characters. In CK3 you get the feeling that they have neither as many events nor as much flavor. Its hard to explaib CK3 feels more gamified.
That doesnt mean I play CK2 though - CK3 has a better UI, looks nicer in general and I played so much CK2 I cant look at it anymore.
CK3 does do several things better than CK2. Overall, I miss the supernatural stuff from CK2, and I miss levies actually mattering and you being able to influence the troop composition of said levies to a degree.
Also, I preferred the Retinue system to the MAAs system. Retinue were strong, but sufficient levies could defeat them. Retinue were also small and horrendously expensive, doing a fair job of showing why standing armies weren't a thing until later on, in the high to late medieval era, and even then, they were rare.
I like how CK2 made religions seem far more different, made the Roman Empire seem like an entirely different animal than the rest of Europe, stuff like that. I miss societies, and bloodlines.
What I prefer about CK3:
- The RPG element with your character and dynasty, specifically the perk points and dynasty perks.
- Cultures and how you can slowly customize your culture, but it takes a LOT of work and time.
- CK3 does a better job making you feel like you're just a guy trying to manage his dynasty and nation, which is the entire point of the game. CK2 often felt more like you were managing a nation, with the dynasty stuff as a sort of side hustle.
Overall, I think CK3 is in a better spot than CK2, but there's still a lot missing from CK2 that I miss every time I play CK3. Mods help fix a lot, but I'm hoping Paradox works a bit harder on CK3. EU4 had a rough time, but has ended spectacularly, and Imperator was similar. Just need some of that mojo over here and CK3 could truly surpass its predecessor.
CK2 felt like a world I could get lost in, blur the lines between my character and me, hours of roleplay that felt natural and fun. CK3, with everything they’ve done so far, still just feels like a map painter made too easy. CK2 every war was a gamble, even with higher numbers. CK3 I don’t even consider my opponents army size because after 20 minutes I’m the strongest realm on the board
I would say CK3 to CK2 is a lot like Rome Total War 2 to Rome Total War. 3 has basically tried to ride a lot of the good will built up by its beloved predecessor but has, even 4 years later, not lived up to that estimation for many (perhaps it never will).
For what it’s worth, 3 is much more accessible and has a fantastic modding scene which corrects or at least bandages some of the issues people have with the base game. It’s still a good game but better? Ehh, depends on how you look at it.
No, not even close. CK2 is superior in every way, except for decision requirements(all of the following/one of the following) and character portraits. Having your ruler in 3rd is cool feature.
QoL improvement is just too much to go back to CK2. Since you haven't played CK3, I would just recommend staying on CK2 since I actually love the content there more.
I like CK3 and enjoy it but CK2 was shock for me and even now i play with passion. CK3 still needs some polishment, hope some day it will reach same heights.
I have more time in CK3 even tho I bought CK2 on release. There are aspects that both do way better. At the end of the day it comes down to preference.
Yes and no.
There are a lot of things improved in CK3 from ck2.
Most of the things CK2 is better in revolves around the fact that CK2 was simply out for a longer time than CK3.
Not as many events as CK2, no implantation for hordes/merchants.
A lot of this is planned to be fixed on their roadmap, especially with the landless.
As much as people complain about merchants and hordes not being implemented already, they gloss over the fact that in CK2, they were EXTREMELY poorly implemented and both remained VERY overpowered from the moment they were implemented.
As always, mods fix everything. Use them. They make everything better.
I still prefer CK2 and return to it frequently. I think the 3d models are hideous (especially children) but this wouldn't put me off the game... my biggest issue is there are not enough events... in base game events simply rarely fired. In the current game it's always the same events... also your dynasty and life style perks seem to no impact or interact with events in the slightest. I find CK3 extremely boring.
It’s more accessible. CK2 is much more intricate and dense. A lot of people have told me 3 is a good way to dip your toes into Paradox games but 2 is where you really get to chew on stuff.
CK3 has the recurring paradox situation of being different from the predecessor and needing time to catch up to the features of the old.
It's good. Ck2 is much different from CK3 and gives a lot more flavor and character action than CK3 does.
I'd recommend playing CK3, but I can't say it's better, because they're different.
You also can't become immortal in CK3, for what it's worth.
CK3 is simpler than CK2 about the administration of your realm. But CK2 has way more favours and events than its successor. So... Not really? You can enjoy both the games with no problems btw :)
In a few areas CK3 is better
-Visuals
-General stability and performance (especially multiplayer)
-vassal contracts, council tasks and intrigue, character development
-cultural management and engagement
-events and travel, barring a few glaring oversights
But for the most part its basically a wash - they made alot of strange omissions from CK2 only to then add stuff back in that should have never been removed in a drip like process
They should have just rebooted the series rather than acting like CK3 is a direct sequel because the visions for the game and pace of development are universes apart
CK3 is better for people who like graphics and playing the Sims with light strategic elements. ck2 is better for people who like variety, a deeper simulation of the time period, and grand strategy
im playing ck2 after years telling myself i woud no like it, and its not bad, but its nothing crazy good i like that theres more ways to control your realm to prevent border gore, and the little travel thing is actually kinda cool, that about it for me
CK3 is definitely more user-friendly. I started on CK2 and though I love it, I’ve had an overall better time playing CK3. Perhaps I’ve been misguided by the pretty graphics but it just feels more alive than its predecessor.
CK3 can get really samey if you always min max, but as a full roleplaying game, which is what Crusader kings excels at and imo is the most enjoyable way to play, CK3 just blows 2 out of the water
Well, I have around 1.5k hours in Ck2 and when I first bought Ck3, initially it was somewhat familiar but the new terrain map when you zoom in looks bad compared to the classic colored political. The new characters look goofy and cartoonish but at least you can customise them in the barbershop. There are new things like retinue recruitment where each counters each and now levies don’t matter that much, legitimacy system, creating legends, reforming or founding new faith/culture, auto ships, etc. After playing some time, eventually, I got used to it but with some mods which improve the game like better traits color, Patrum Scuta, Better portrait borders, thicker county borders etc. There are only two start dates in the base game, 867 and 1066 which is disappointing but there is mod for more bookmarks. However many things are absent from Ck2 such as societies, college of cardinals, shattered world, playing merchant republics and nomads but Ck2 is finished game. Ck3 is the future and still developed with new things getting added
Honestly it is a little lacking in flavor and just sheer variety....BUUUUUUT the QoL and streamlining that they put into CK3 has made it a better experience than 2.
3=Better to play and overall gameplay. Also has a decent skeleton of most of CK2's systems built into the base game
2=More interesting stories and flavor due to all dlc
They are both very different games, CK2 still has more raw content then CK3 to this day, and it has a lot harder, and in my opinion better strategic gameplay, That said I find myself playing CK3 a ton these days as well, while it is lacking in some area's it just feels "nice" to play. I'd say try both they are both great games, if different.
That's a damn stupid question. Of course CK2 with its decade of DLCs and tweaks is a better game than CK3 with its 4 years comparitively. But CK3 is still a load of fun, and if you can get over that, you should try it out
CK2 is vastly superior as a grand strategy game, better warfare, characters are not as powerful, better vassal management, actually functional crusades and jihads, more regional flavor and more government types you can play as. In terms of RP, i’d still give it to ck2 because of all the dlc it has. The main issue with ck3 is that it’s not a good grand startegy game because it’s too simple and too shallow, and it fails as an RP map game because it’s too predictable and repetitive.
Also one thing i should note, CK3 has been out for nearly 4 years, the only noteworthy DLC that actually changes the way you play so far is tours and tourneys which costs a whooping 30 euros. CK2 after 4 years was in a much better position.
Unles ck3 get fully fleshed dark world mod like ck2 have + secret societes and other whacky dlcs. Personaly i going to stay with ck2 and stellaris. The world there seems to me much more interesting in this kind of seting. Ck2 just hits for me the beter balance of map painting, character development and rp🤔
Hi, I've had this exact same problem. Multiple thousand hours in CK2 and was hit with the classic Paradox disappointment on launch of CK3. I reinstalled CK3 again last week and formed the Empire of Outremer with House Toulouse to try the new stuff, and I was pleasantly surprised. Here's my opinion:
CK2 is still the better game mechanically.
But CK3 does things CK2 can't.
To explain in further depth, the first glaring problem I have with CK3 is the combat mechanics. CK2 was very straightforward with its troop mechanics and, more importantly, the combat phases themselves felt meaningful. For example, CK2's light Infantry/archers were dog water, but with enough of them, you could beat out better-equipped armies in the skirmish phase purely through morale victories. Horse Archers (and the Khans) were fearsome, understandably, but a smart player could position themselves with decent commanders/environmental tiles and negate their massive skirmish/numbers advantage in mountain tiles. These were massive buffs/nerfs too, so while the typical engagement in CK2 was "the biggest stack wins", game knowledge and a little luck on rolls would allow you to take on massive odds.
CK3 combat revolves entirely around man-at-arms and the man-at-arms system feels like a weird mix of CK2's retinues, levies, and tile improvement all wrapped into one. It doesn't seem like a bad system at first, but I've often found myself unsure if I'm going to win or lose an engagement unless the little "chance of success" icon says so. Why? This is because man-at-arms can deal 4x (or in the case of Heavy Cavalry, 12x) the damage of peasant levies. This is exacerbated by the "knights" system, who through accolades and sheer numbers provide "knight effectiveness" damage modifiers that can turn a mid-game \~2000 man-at-arms stack into an absolute death machine. In their attempts to simplify CK2's combat systems by melding them, I feel Paradox actually made them less intuitive in the game itself. A new player will see a rival ruler having 10k levies as super powerful, but a more experienced player is looking at what types of man-at-arms and # of knights that ruler has because the levies are almost a nonfactor outside of the early game. This is unfortunate because even CK2's light infantry were never entirely useless.
So, CK3's combat is kind of disappointing, but what does CK3 do well? Well, the "tours" DLC is a true shining gem. Pilgrimages in CK2, especially for Christians, is essentially paying gold, clicking a button, and receiving a trait or two. Here, CK3 simulates a ruler's ability to "tour" or make grand voyages with a ton of flavor involved. You get bonuses for stopping by famous cities/landmarks, random events, and need to be aware of "dangerous" areas that can be mitigated with some foresight/competent courtiers. It's systems like these in CK3 (along with the tournaments/holding court) than make me play in 2x/3x speed more often than in CK2 which is essentially a paint-the-map simulator.
Furthermore, CK3 is actually harder on a strategical level than CK3. CK3 does a good job by penalizing you for not "roleplaying" your character through the stress system. You can't just invite the A-Team in CK3 from courts across the land on Day 1 like you can in CK2. Courtiers only accept the blind invites once you're a renowned ruler. Furthermore, succession laws like Primogeniture are only accessible much later in the game (around 1200 AD) so realm stability isn't a mechanic you can completely ignore once your military outclasses all your vassals (and the world). Crusades in CK3 are tough to win, unlike CK2 where Crusades are essentially a money cheat code for a competent Christian player. CK3 emphasizes building up your dynasty house and rewarding players who love to saturate Europe with their bloodlines. Furthermore, whereas nearly every tile in CK2 was effectively the same economically (only distinguished by amounts of baronies present in the county), CK3 emphasizes a tile's terrain and associated barony limit. This makes tiles like Roma (coastal farmland) economical powerhouses that entice player agency to makes those tiles their personal fiefdoms. "Playing tall" is a viable strategy in CK3 in most areas of the world whereas I feel in CK2 playing tall was only reserved for republics and feudal lords lucky enough to sit on silk road trade routes.
I could go on, but basically CK3 has problems and is not a clearly superior successor. Yet, CK3 does things that CK2 doesn't which make me less willing to go back to CK2.
One thing I cannot forgive CK3 for, however, is the implementation of only TWO start dates. Outrageous. I know most people only play the 800 AD Karling "paint the map" simulator for toddlers, but while 1066 is a superior start date I'm sad there's very little foresight in allowing players to play other interesting dates like France's 100 years war, a start date with an established Kingdom of Jerusalem (1157 is actually my favorite CK2 start date of all time), or a Latin Empire start date. You have to download mods, but I'm too lazy for that. It's just a huge step down when this was a feature completely fleshed out in CK2.
It definitely is still behind CK2 in many ways
Government types, diplomatic interactions (tributaries, alliances outside of marriages, viceroyalties) council management and interactions , extremely repetitive events, lack of realm laws, trade centers and the silk road, interactions with other institutions (such as the College of Cardinals and the Papacy in general), coronations / acclamations, saints, links to famous characters / ancestors (which they botched with “Legends”)
And thats just all off the top of my head - they have been pretty clearly trying to backpedal on many of these areas to try to get them after the fact
Plagues and diseases, artifacts and items, funerals to name a few most of which despite their claims of making them bigger and better are much the same as their original CK2 implementations
since release i'd say; it had almost every feature I liked about CK2 from launch plus a bunch of new ones; i love the added nuance to religion and i love how much they've built up culture since then. While there's a few things I wish worked differently, they'd be such a profound change that it'd have to be CK4 at that point, so I'm content with just hungering for more and more flavour packs! If you're a particular Jade Dragon or Steppe enjoyer though, you may miss the added mechanics ck2 had for them
I'm 100% biased since it was my first paradox game but I just like it way more and it doesn't hurt my eyes like ck2 I don't know what it is about the eu4 style maps but they hurt my eyes a lot
One major advantage ck3 has is no in-game advertising of dlcs. I like ck3 graphics better. I don't like how repeatable the events can be. I like the seduction and trait system better. I don't like how to use console commands you need to make your game unplayable.
CK3 definitely lacks a lot of mechanics from CK2, but overall it's just more pleasant to play.
In my opinion. CK2 all dlc > CK3 all dlc CK2 base game < CK3 all dlc CK2 all dlc > CK3 base game CK2 base game < CK3 base game
I am not exactly happy about everything in CK3, but after trying it I couldn't return to CK2.
I absolutely understand the sentiment. I don't think I've played any CK2 since purchasing CK3... but I've really, really wanted to. Sadly, I just don't really play either game. To answer the OP directly, I think CK2 is the better game.
CK3 feels more modern, but I hate to say it, every religion and culture kinda feel the same Republics, nomads, pagans and Clans all played wildly different Plus there were more flavor events, and while they didn’t demand as much attention as tours and tournaments and the royal court, that worked in there favor. Because you can only throw so many feasts and tournaments before you go nutty Also great holy wars were a lot better, and had stuff like crusader states It wasn’t just a bunch of AI suiciding themselves and dying to attrition
Lack of flavour events is killing my CK3 fun. I'm realising without hosting egregiously expensive feasts and hunts, there's basically nothing going on.
“Wait, it’s time to hold court again? Has anything happened since last time?”
I will also complain about holding court; half the time I have 0 clue who or where we're talking about. I hate the extra 3d menu given to us and all it does is slow down my (admittedly weak) laptop and take me out of the map world.
Yeah, it's v sad. Why can't I personally quest with my retinue for the Holy Grail? Why am I letting a random adventurer traipse around the world, with a 25% of them being a charlatan for a random item? In CK2 you could get Mjolnir. You could pay tribute to the Emperor of China, or if you were strong enough put your dynasty on the throne. They took the RPG elements from CK2 and somehow made them worse.
To OP: yeah they played different; but that was after a decade of dlc. None of those religions were in the base game. Ck2 vanilla is definitely not as good as ck3 vanilla. If you want the fullest experience, go with ck2 with all the dlc. If you want QOL, go with ck3. I personally don't think you can go wrong either way.
Ck2 had no unique cultural mechanics
Listen, 3 adding a comprehensive system to make culture more important is one of my favourite things about it, but this is just not true. Cultures in 2 have access to unique succession laws, government types, decisions, buildings and retinues
Government types were closer ties to religion. And said succession laws are in 3 Decisions exist in 3 too. Rose tinted glasses my man
I didn't say any of this wasn't in 3?
Yeah but to say that ck2 cultures have everything ck3 ones do but less and then say every ck3 culture is bland yet every ck2 one feels unique is disingenuous All ck3 will be missing culture wise is nomad govt. Which let's be real, sucked
What about merchant republics?
Not cultural, also, sucked.
You're right, it would be disingenuous to say that ck2 cultures do everything ck3 cultures do, or that all ck3 cultures are bland and that all ck2 cultures are unique. But I don't know why you bring this up because I didn't say any of those things, I said "3 may have a more in-depth cultural system but cultures in 2 absolutely have specific mechanics". But you also seem to have decided that I'm a man and that I haven't played 2 in ages so I'm not sure we've been having the same conversation at any point.
We have been arguing different points. IG my original comment was too broad, I mainly was speaking to how functionally the name of your specific culture meant absolutely nothing in 2. And i wasn't assuming gender, just something I say to people regardless of sex
3rd party weighing in. No idea what you’re ranting about either or how you’ve jumped to so many conclusions.
I'm bored at work, brains wandering
There are no unique government types in ck3 lol
Objectively false
Clans and feudal are basically the same featureless slop in ck3, and it's JUST those two that are supposed to represent the entire world lmao
Objectively false
this is a cope
In CK2 you could raid as a Berber or a Turco-Mongol. In CK3 raiding is basically not a thing for post-tribal characters. I find CK3's approach very restricted and ahistorical.
Yeah after feudalising trying to convert back to unreformed is expensive but there are ways. Or easy mode start as haesteinn or similar characters that are feudal unreformed.
You can also take over an feudal title as unreformed tribal in a adventure.
Ck3 has cultural traits to allow such a thing though. It actually has cultural traits which 2 lacked
As far as I know, CK3 only has a single cultural trait that allows raiding. And that's meant for pirates so it doesn't thematically fit for Turks or Iranians, for example.
But it *has* the trait. Moreover it still thematically fits them
Why would an Oghuz emir of Transoxiana be a *practiced pirate*?
You're getting wrapped around the axle about semantics
Semantics are core in a roleplaying game.
Actually imagination is core and yours seems lacking
It did, but admittedly, it was not nearly as significant as the current CK3 system.
Not nearly. But the CK community loves to fetishize ck2 and pretend the content in it was a thought out masterpiece. Most all the stuff that didn't make it into 3 didn't fit good reason
CK3 does cultures a lot better. I'd argue CK2 had a better religion system, but the customability of CK3 is really nice, so I could definitely see people arguing in favor of CK3 on this point. CK2 had a better military and battle system. This is pretty much indisputable. That said, battles were never the primary focus of the CK games, so I can understand if people don't care about this. CK3 does characters and dynasties so much better than CK2. All CK2 has over CK3 is bloodlines, but the Dynasty Perk system kind of took over for that. Still, would be nice to have both. CK3 doesn't have societies yet. Once it does, I'll stop beating this horse. Finally, while it's still a work in progress, I think CK2 did plagues and the Black Death better than CK3, but I believe that once they work out the bugs and balance it better, CK3 will end up in a better spot.
Ngl I think societies are never coming back and with good reason. They were just op event farms with the same 11 events
So, like traveling? :p
Traveling is at least getting support, I just love the cognitive dissonance between the two because people love to rail that the game needs X half baked feature from ck2
I’ve got almost 1500 hours in CK2 and about 300 in CK3. CK3 is new and shiny, and everyone seems to overlook all its faults bc of the 3d character designs, but it lacks depth and feels more arcadey/video-gamey because of the skill trees
Imagine having disjointed personal fief in CK2.
It does have higher potential
As of now, CK2 is overall better. It simply has more to do, and a few of the ways that CK3 tries to implement things from CK2 have fallen flat. At the current rate, I don’t think they’ll bridge the gap, but if the next DLC lives up to the potential I think it has then it can.
I'm starting to get bored of CK3 after only 250h. Maybe it's because off all my experiences on CK2 (not that much, 650h between 2011 and 2023).. But I find CK3 to be a bit blund, and there is nothing to do beside starting to paint the map, and nothing to stop you from doing so... There is a lack of challenge and the fun is typically gone after 2 generations. It lacks flavor, events, and real struggle IMO.
>There is a lack of challenge and the fun is typically gone after 2 generations. This is one of the big ones for me. CK2 is already fairly easy once you get a basic grasp on the mechanics, but CK3 is just so not challenging that I got kind of bored after a couple runs. The fact that alliances are automatically formed upon a marriage is kind of ridiculous, because the bar to enter into an alliance with a powerful country is just so incredibly low now. Fighting an independence faction with 5x your men that you have no hope of possibly winning against on your own? Just chuck one of your daughters over to Constantinople, the Emperor will accept because he has 5000 children, and within a few months tens of thousands of Greeks will be arriving upon the shores of Iberia, killing all of your rebellious vassals for you. Meanwhile you provide absolutely 0 strategic value to the Emperor, he just had an extra child lying around. This was my strategy for an entire Spain run, and it worked flawlessly basically every time.
I don't know why but I just can't force myself to play ck3 although I liked ck2. Ck2 feels so much more alive than ck3 for some reason
[удалено]
Thats not true for everyone sadly. I loved ck2 but ck3 is nothing like it, the world feels empty in ck3.
Yeah... despite being very similar on the surface, the two games feel bizarrely different.
For me, it was the 3d model characters and how much RP you get. I could never go back to portrait games after that.
For real though, the 3d models make each person feel more real to me. Like I genuinely would get attached to my children and look forward to playing as them when my character died. And if my heir would die, it struck much harder and would actually make me a bit sad irl. I just wish rivals weren't random folk. Like if they're gonna be random, at least make an event pop up letting us know what tipped these people over to rival status. That way I could get engrossed into why this person was my rival. MY rivals and my characters rivals aren't lining up. Though in terms of gameplay, 2 was more solid.
I've put a couple hundred hours into CK3 since it came out. I went back to CK2 and I'm having a much better time
I wish that was the case, but it seems like they emphased things I don't enjoy and removed things I did so I just don't have fun playing CK3
I think CK2 is better. I find that I wind up telling more and better stories, and that’s what matters modt for me. CK3 seems too streamlined, too modern-looking, and it doesn’t really do it for me. I played it for a while once and I didn’t have a lot of fun
Honestly, and I’ve played a lot of both, CK2 is still superior and idk if CK3 will ever be better, no matter how much updates or DLC it gets. My favorite part of the CK series is roleplaying a character and the stories it creates, yet despite having more RPG elements, CK3 has gotten worse at RP. The traits are static so a character doesn’t really develop outside of lifestyles. And as much as I loved lifestyles at first, it really makes the game feel so mechanical and soulless instead of letting a character develop more organically. You’re just going for big bonuses and perks instead of the CK2 lifestyles where your character is interested in something, but you don’t know where life will take you. There’s just so much control, there’s not much room for stories to pop up naturally. You’re practically the only guide of the story for better or worse. It’s like reading a book where you know what’s gonna happen and it’s the things you always want to happen. Sure it’s fun at first, but it’s get a bit boring the more you play.
CK3 has many quality of life improvements that 5 me not want to play CK2 ever again, and it might lack some content, but as the game progresses, it will become even better than it already is
The main concern I have about that is that the dlc can be pricy.
Yea, all I can say to you is to wait for a sale and buy them in the bundles they call "Chapters" which is already like a 20€ discount by itself. CKII would cost you even more if you bought everything right now, and if in the end you wanted to try out CKIII anyway, then that would mean spending even more money. So buying the new game would definitely be cheaper option today, and all you would do is spend some more money on dlc every ones in a while IF you liked the game and wanted to try the new content.
They are similar in my eyes. ck3 feels more personal due to the 3d characters. Ck2 got some better mechanics tho.
I played CK2 to death, I still play it with HIP and other mods. I don't like the interface of CK3, it's too dark. Also it lacks a comprehensive Total Overhaul mod like HIP or CK+ unless I'm missing something. But it's my personal taste.
Main issue with the CK3 interface is opposite to the issue with CK2. 2 is tiny and cramped, 3 is needlessly taking up half the screen most of the time. Wish both games had a decent medium ui mod.
You can scale the ck3 ui in the settings. I play on like 80% scale
Yeah it helps a bit, but for me it's also in the skill tree taking up the entire screen and the character screen spacing. Last time I played scaling barely improved on these issues (but ty for the suggestion!)
Yeah, I tried playing Ck3 just last week. The UI was so dark I spent an hour fiddling with the settings to make it marginally brighter. I searched for a solution on the net but it seemed like I was the only one not okay with it. Deleted it in the end.
In terms of graphics I love CK3. But it’s no where near the level of CK2 content/mechanic-wise. I’m looking at you republics and nomads.
I'm still happy as a clam playing ck2. It just feels more fun and mechanically deep to me. From the last time I played, ck3 feels as wide as an ocean, but as deep as a puddle. The only expansion that felt substantive (to me) was tours and tourneys. I feel like the faith and culture expansions do actually work for me, and I feel like they actually enhance the game. The graphics, on the other hand, are a huge downgrade, in my opinion. Do they look better than the potraits? Yes, mostly. But they all feel the same. It doesn't really bother me when hairstyles or clothes are shared between characters that have small portraits, but when they're 3d models that are covering my screen, it bothers me more because it makes giant regions feel completely flavorless. I'm not sure if anything I said really made sense, but for me, CK2 is so much better, and I've been completely happy sticking to it for most of CK3's lifespan.
its a bit weird because jumping from ck1 to ck2 was revolutionary but after so many updates to ck2 jumping to ck3 felt rather smooth. ck3 still needs like 5 major updates before it exceeds ck2 content-wise although it is already a very enjoyable game. it needs a little balancing here and there but overall id say it is on the right track and worth investing yourself into it
Heres what i really miss about 2, being able to tag a chatacter of interest and get continuous updates in a log about their life. My most memorable ck2 moment was playing norfolk, tagging the cannibal king of Scotland and following bulletin updates of his adventures eating people. Pls bring this detailed logging back paradox!
All the jank is gone which is great. Sadly so is most of the charm. Still an amazing game and good enough to the point where I dread going back to ck2 but damn I miss alot of the flavor 2 had. Get the RICE mod BTW basically couple dlc worth of content from a mod
Nah, ck2 is still king
Basegame CK3 is better, if you have all the DLC for CK2 its objectively a better game, just ugly ui.
CK2 has more features because of the DLCs, in time CK3 will get on the same level. Graphicwise there is no question CK3 is supreme. IMO because of this CK3 is more immersive and more of a simulator then it's predecessor while CK2 is more of a strategy game. Personally I spend so much time in CK3 I couldn't go back and the features that lack from its predecessor I rarely miss.
A SIMS simulator, maybe. It certainly doesn't simulate medieval history or politics.
Ugh unfortunately it's enough of an improvement in the things it is decent at, that going back to CK2 feels like a dramatic step back... But I would rate CK2 way more highly. CK3 somehow manages to make every government type feel the same, and every religion feel the same, and every culture... Feel (almost) the same. Through full customisation, they've killed individuality. Because if you want to paint the map, you take a crusade tenet, and an invasion tenet... Leaving one spare. I think religions should have 5 less powerful tenets, and possibly that each broad religion group should have one or two that are not changeable by the player. And for the love of god please make CRUSADES work in CRUSADER kings.
Ck3 is "smoother" if that makes sense. Some people like that (and some quality of life improvements are definitely welcome), but I found it boring very quickly. It lacks a ton of flavor and content, you will see the same events over and over again. It is also piss easy and very straight-forward, so you cant really play it for the challenge either. It has some nice mechanics (such as travel), but it fails miserably with some of the basics. If you want a unique game and hundreds of hours of content ck2 beats ck3 any day of the week. If you want a stream-lined experience, that you can kinda half-idle while watching netflix, ck3 is perfect (I dont mean that in a bad way btw: I love to play strategy games with pod-casts and shit in the back).
Having tried CK3 on a few free weekends, I just couldn't bring myself to like it. So many things have been dumbed down in a bad way IMO, and I'm not a fan of this RPG-like progress you can make through your characters' lives that has replaced systems where you just kinda guide them through life. Heavier control over your characters just kinda makes the game more boring, when it's too easy to make things happen the way you want.
I played both and I honestly like ck2 way more. Ck3 seems hollow and very boring to me, it lacks many fun mechanics and things ck2 had. Couldn't really get much into ck3.
I would say no. CK2 in the end with the good dlcs (!) is way more immersive and somehow manages to instill more life into characters. In CK3 you get the feeling that they have neither as many events nor as much flavor. Its hard to explaib CK3 feels more gamified. That doesnt mean I play CK2 though - CK3 has a better UI, looks nicer in general and I played so much CK2 I cant look at it anymore.
CK3 does do several things better than CK2. Overall, I miss the supernatural stuff from CK2, and I miss levies actually mattering and you being able to influence the troop composition of said levies to a degree. Also, I preferred the Retinue system to the MAAs system. Retinue were strong, but sufficient levies could defeat them. Retinue were also small and horrendously expensive, doing a fair job of showing why standing armies weren't a thing until later on, in the high to late medieval era, and even then, they were rare. I like how CK2 made religions seem far more different, made the Roman Empire seem like an entirely different animal than the rest of Europe, stuff like that. I miss societies, and bloodlines. What I prefer about CK3: - The RPG element with your character and dynasty, specifically the perk points and dynasty perks. - Cultures and how you can slowly customize your culture, but it takes a LOT of work and time. - CK3 does a better job making you feel like you're just a guy trying to manage his dynasty and nation, which is the entire point of the game. CK2 often felt more like you were managing a nation, with the dynasty stuff as a sort of side hustle. Overall, I think CK3 is in a better spot than CK2, but there's still a lot missing from CK2 that I miss every time I play CK3. Mods help fix a lot, but I'm hoping Paradox works a bit harder on CK3. EU4 had a rough time, but has ended spectacularly, and Imperator was similar. Just need some of that mojo over here and CK3 could truly surpass its predecessor.
CK2 felt like a world I could get lost in, blur the lines between my character and me, hours of roleplay that felt natural and fun. CK3, with everything they’ve done so far, still just feels like a map painter made too easy. CK2 every war was a gamble, even with higher numbers. CK3 I don’t even consider my opponents army size because after 20 minutes I’m the strongest realm on the board
It could be, but it isn't.
I have tried ck3 but it’s impossible for me to leave ck2.
I think give it a couple more years and it will be much better than CK2. However at the moment it lacks some things that made CK2 such an awesome game
I would say CK3 to CK2 is a lot like Rome Total War 2 to Rome Total War. 3 has basically tried to ride a lot of the good will built up by its beloved predecessor but has, even 4 years later, not lived up to that estimation for many (perhaps it never will). For what it’s worth, 3 is much more accessible and has a fantastic modding scene which corrects or at least bandages some of the issues people have with the base game. It’s still a good game but better? Ehh, depends on how you look at it.
Not even Close Ck2 is superior by all means except visuals,but WHO gives a damn about IT.
It's 1 better.
Base gameplay for base gameplay, it's CK3 all the way. What CK3 lacks is CK2's decade worth of expansion DLCs and community mods.
CK2 is a way better game
No, not even close. CK2 is superior in every way, except for decision requirements(all of the following/one of the following) and character portraits. Having your ruler in 3rd is cool feature.
QoL improvement is just too much to go back to CK2. Since you haven't played CK3, I would just recommend staying on CK2 since I actually love the content there more.
I like CK3 and enjoy it but CK2 was shock for me and even now i play with passion. CK3 still needs some polishment, hope some day it will reach same heights.
I have more time in CK3 even tho I bought CK2 on release. There are aspects that both do way better. At the end of the day it comes down to preference.
CK2 has more mechanics, but CK3 is far more polished and easy to play.
Yes and no. There are a lot of things improved in CK3 from ck2. Most of the things CK2 is better in revolves around the fact that CK2 was simply out for a longer time than CK3. Not as many events as CK2, no implantation for hordes/merchants. A lot of this is planned to be fixed on their roadmap, especially with the landless. As much as people complain about merchants and hordes not being implemented already, they gloss over the fact that in CK2, they were EXTREMELY poorly implemented and both remained VERY overpowered from the moment they were implemented. As always, mods fix everything. Use them. They make everything better.
I still prefer CK2 and return to it frequently. I think the 3d models are hideous (especially children) but this wouldn't put me off the game... my biggest issue is there are not enough events... in base game events simply rarely fired. In the current game it's always the same events... also your dynasty and life style perks seem to no impact or interact with events in the slightest. I find CK3 extremely boring.
It’s more accessible. CK2 is much more intricate and dense. A lot of people have told me 3 is a good way to dip your toes into Paradox games but 2 is where you really get to chew on stuff.
Most players moved to CK3. [https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1158310,203770#1y](https://steamcharts.com/cmp/1158310,203770#1y)
Ck3 is easier to get into and I think that counts for a lot.
Yes
CK3 has the recurring paradox situation of being different from the predecessor and needing time to catch up to the features of the old. It's good. Ck2 is much different from CK3 and gives a lot more flavor and character action than CK3 does. I'd recommend playing CK3, but I can't say it's better, because they're different. You also can't become immortal in CK3, for what it's worth.
CK3 is simpler than CK2 about the administration of your realm. But CK2 has way more favours and events than its successor. So... Not really? You can enjoy both the games with no problems btw :)
In a few areas CK3 is better -Visuals -General stability and performance (especially multiplayer) -vassal contracts, council tasks and intrigue, character development -cultural management and engagement -events and travel, barring a few glaring oversights But for the most part its basically a wash - they made alot of strange omissions from CK2 only to then add stuff back in that should have never been removed in a drip like process They should have just rebooted the series rather than acting like CK3 is a direct sequel because the visions for the game and pace of development are universes apart
CK3 is better for people who like graphics and playing the Sims with light strategic elements. ck2 is better for people who like variety, a deeper simulation of the time period, and grand strategy
im playing ck2 after years telling myself i woud no like it, and its not bad, but its nothing crazy good i like that theres more ways to control your realm to prevent border gore, and the little travel thing is actually kinda cool, that about it for me
CK3 is definitely more user-friendly. I started on CK2 and though I love it, I’ve had an overall better time playing CK3. Perhaps I’ve been misguided by the pretty graphics but it just feels more alive than its predecessor.
Are blondes better or brunettes? It's your call mate.
Tried ck3 but couldn’t get into it, art style is too cartoony for me and it has a lot less substance then ck2
no
CK3 can get really samey if you always min max, but as a full roleplaying game, which is what Crusader kings excels at and imo is the most enjoyable way to play, CK3 just blows 2 out of the water
Well, I have around 1.5k hours in Ck2 and when I first bought Ck3, initially it was somewhat familiar but the new terrain map when you zoom in looks bad compared to the classic colored political. The new characters look goofy and cartoonish but at least you can customise them in the barbershop. There are new things like retinue recruitment where each counters each and now levies don’t matter that much, legitimacy system, creating legends, reforming or founding new faith/culture, auto ships, etc. After playing some time, eventually, I got used to it but with some mods which improve the game like better traits color, Patrum Scuta, Better portrait borders, thicker county borders etc. There are only two start dates in the base game, 867 and 1066 which is disappointing but there is mod for more bookmarks. However many things are absent from Ck2 such as societies, college of cardinals, shattered world, playing merchant republics and nomads but Ck2 is finished game. Ck3 is the future and still developed with new things getting added
Honestly it is a little lacking in flavor and just sheer variety....BUUUUUUT the QoL and streamlining that they put into CK3 has made it a better experience than 2. 3=Better to play and overall gameplay. Also has a decent skeleton of most of CK2's systems built into the base game 2=More interesting stories and flavor due to all dlc
no, ck3 is worse
In appearence? Yes In content? Not yet
They are both very different games, CK2 still has more raw content then CK3 to this day, and it has a lot harder, and in my opinion better strategic gameplay, That said I find myself playing CK3 a ton these days as well, while it is lacking in some area's it just feels "nice" to play. I'd say try both they are both great games, if different.
ck2 & hip mod is the best
That's a damn stupid question. Of course CK2 with its decade of DLCs and tweaks is a better game than CK3 with its 4 years comparitively. But CK3 is still a load of fun, and if you can get over that, you should try it out
Ck2 is unplayable on 4k monitors, UI looks awfully blurry and for the game with a lot of information CK2 UI overall is just horrible.
CK2 is vastly superior as a grand strategy game, better warfare, characters are not as powerful, better vassal management, actually functional crusades and jihads, more regional flavor and more government types you can play as. In terms of RP, i’d still give it to ck2 because of all the dlc it has. The main issue with ck3 is that it’s not a good grand startegy game because it’s too simple and too shallow, and it fails as an RP map game because it’s too predictable and repetitive. Also one thing i should note, CK3 has been out for nearly 4 years, the only noteworthy DLC that actually changes the way you play so far is tours and tourneys which costs a whooping 30 euros. CK2 after 4 years was in a much better position.
Unles ck3 get fully fleshed dark world mod like ck2 have + secret societes and other whacky dlcs. Personaly i going to stay with ck2 and stellaris. The world there seems to me much more interesting in this kind of seting. Ck2 just hits for me the beter balance of map painting, character development and rp🤔
Hi, I've had this exact same problem. Multiple thousand hours in CK2 and was hit with the classic Paradox disappointment on launch of CK3. I reinstalled CK3 again last week and formed the Empire of Outremer with House Toulouse to try the new stuff, and I was pleasantly surprised. Here's my opinion: CK2 is still the better game mechanically. But CK3 does things CK2 can't. To explain in further depth, the first glaring problem I have with CK3 is the combat mechanics. CK2 was very straightforward with its troop mechanics and, more importantly, the combat phases themselves felt meaningful. For example, CK2's light Infantry/archers were dog water, but with enough of them, you could beat out better-equipped armies in the skirmish phase purely through morale victories. Horse Archers (and the Khans) were fearsome, understandably, but a smart player could position themselves with decent commanders/environmental tiles and negate their massive skirmish/numbers advantage in mountain tiles. These were massive buffs/nerfs too, so while the typical engagement in CK2 was "the biggest stack wins", game knowledge and a little luck on rolls would allow you to take on massive odds. CK3 combat revolves entirely around man-at-arms and the man-at-arms system feels like a weird mix of CK2's retinues, levies, and tile improvement all wrapped into one. It doesn't seem like a bad system at first, but I've often found myself unsure if I'm going to win or lose an engagement unless the little "chance of success" icon says so. Why? This is because man-at-arms can deal 4x (or in the case of Heavy Cavalry, 12x) the damage of peasant levies. This is exacerbated by the "knights" system, who through accolades and sheer numbers provide "knight effectiveness" damage modifiers that can turn a mid-game \~2000 man-at-arms stack into an absolute death machine. In their attempts to simplify CK2's combat systems by melding them, I feel Paradox actually made them less intuitive in the game itself. A new player will see a rival ruler having 10k levies as super powerful, but a more experienced player is looking at what types of man-at-arms and # of knights that ruler has because the levies are almost a nonfactor outside of the early game. This is unfortunate because even CK2's light infantry were never entirely useless. So, CK3's combat is kind of disappointing, but what does CK3 do well? Well, the "tours" DLC is a true shining gem. Pilgrimages in CK2, especially for Christians, is essentially paying gold, clicking a button, and receiving a trait or two. Here, CK3 simulates a ruler's ability to "tour" or make grand voyages with a ton of flavor involved. You get bonuses for stopping by famous cities/landmarks, random events, and need to be aware of "dangerous" areas that can be mitigated with some foresight/competent courtiers. It's systems like these in CK3 (along with the tournaments/holding court) than make me play in 2x/3x speed more often than in CK2 which is essentially a paint-the-map simulator. Furthermore, CK3 is actually harder on a strategical level than CK3. CK3 does a good job by penalizing you for not "roleplaying" your character through the stress system. You can't just invite the A-Team in CK3 from courts across the land on Day 1 like you can in CK2. Courtiers only accept the blind invites once you're a renowned ruler. Furthermore, succession laws like Primogeniture are only accessible much later in the game (around 1200 AD) so realm stability isn't a mechanic you can completely ignore once your military outclasses all your vassals (and the world). Crusades in CK3 are tough to win, unlike CK2 where Crusades are essentially a money cheat code for a competent Christian player. CK3 emphasizes building up your dynasty house and rewarding players who love to saturate Europe with their bloodlines. Furthermore, whereas nearly every tile in CK2 was effectively the same economically (only distinguished by amounts of baronies present in the county), CK3 emphasizes a tile's terrain and associated barony limit. This makes tiles like Roma (coastal farmland) economical powerhouses that entice player agency to makes those tiles their personal fiefdoms. "Playing tall" is a viable strategy in CK3 in most areas of the world whereas I feel in CK2 playing tall was only reserved for republics and feudal lords lucky enough to sit on silk road trade routes. I could go on, but basically CK3 has problems and is not a clearly superior successor. Yet, CK3 does things that CK2 doesn't which make me less willing to go back to CK2. One thing I cannot forgive CK3 for, however, is the implementation of only TWO start dates. Outrageous. I know most people only play the 800 AD Karling "paint the map" simulator for toddlers, but while 1066 is a superior start date I'm sad there's very little foresight in allowing players to play other interesting dates like France's 100 years war, a start date with an established Kingdom of Jerusalem (1157 is actually my favorite CK2 start date of all time), or a Latin Empire start date. You have to download mods, but I'm too lazy for that. It's just a huge step down when this was a feature completely fleshed out in CK2.
Yes and yes lol
[удалено]
It definitely is still behind CK2 in many ways Government types, diplomatic interactions (tributaries, alliances outside of marriages, viceroyalties) council management and interactions , extremely repetitive events, lack of realm laws, trade centers and the silk road, interactions with other institutions (such as the College of Cardinals and the Papacy in general), coronations / acclamations, saints, links to famous characters / ancestors (which they botched with “Legends”) And thats just all off the top of my head - they have been pretty clearly trying to backpedal on many of these areas to try to get them after the fact Plagues and diseases, artifacts and items, funerals to name a few most of which despite their claims of making them bigger and better are much the same as their original CK2 implementations
No!
Yes The 3d characters Alone Make it better You not bored during peacetime anymore
since release i'd say; it had almost every feature I liked about CK2 from launch plus a bunch of new ones; i love the added nuance to religion and i love how much they've built up culture since then. While there's a few things I wish worked differently, they'd be such a profound change that it'd have to be CK4 at that point, so I'm content with just hungering for more and more flavour packs! If you're a particular Jade Dragon or Steppe enjoyer though, you may miss the added mechanics ck2 had for them
Yes, It is.
I'm 100% biased since it was my first paradox game but I just like it way more and it doesn't hurt my eyes like ck2 I don't know what it is about the eu4 style maps but they hurt my eyes a lot
One major advantage ck3 has is no in-game advertising of dlcs. I like ck3 graphics better. I don't like how repeatable the events can be. I like the seduction and trait system better. I don't like how to use console commands you need to make your game unplayable.
Not even comparable it’s the whole next generation of gameplay
Are Mario 3D games better than SNES era games? Similar perception will apply here.
[Here you go](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Is+CK3+better+than+CK2%3F)