(September 7th, 2020, 12:50)NobleHelium Wrote: For the folks that have played CK3 a decent amount now, what would you say are the major improvements from CK2? And are there any changes that you don't like?
I hinted at some of the changes up above I did, and did not like. Its a paradox game so its hard to compare when they will probably be fleshing things out. I'll go into a bit more detail here
Good:
The map: putting the baronies out on the map was actually quite nice. I feel like the map has maybe fewer counties now, but more spaces overall now. It gives you a better feel for how built up counties are too, since you can see if they have a lot of cities, temples, or castles in them. It can be troublesome to find where you need to siege to take the county though, and they should maybe make the county capital larger to compensate. I'll be interested to see how they play with the map more in future updates.
Streamlined UI: These are mostly quality of life things like say a ransom all button for prisoners. So much nicer than clicking each prisoner one at a time. Also when handing out counties there is a box for "only show recently acquired titles" again quite nice to not miss-click the wrong county after just winning a war. The only UI complaint I have had is it is sometimes hard to find detailed information or the tool tips don't stay put when I go to hover over a trait.
Hook system works well, though its not always clear what a strong vs weak hook will get you, and also does not always resolve issues. For example I want to revoke the titles of a strong vassal, I have a strong hook, yet I still acquire tyranny for doing it? I would make weak hooks easier to get but have fewer effects and make strong hooks really hard to get, but very powerful.
The core game play is still fun and the lifestyle system works well to that end. You get lots of perks and have a great ruler, then they die and your new ruler has few perks. You feel vulnerable staring out your new reign as you should. Maybe all the power of the previous monarch made it so you are overextended even, with a great triumph now looking like an albatross around your neck. (sadly it rarely does feel like that)
Mixed
Lack of navies. Now the fee for transport thing works better than raising navies in CK2. Its streamlining but not necessarily dumbing down because either way you had to account for the gold your navy would burn. However they could also have gone the other way and fleshed out naval combat. At the very least it would be neat to have to hire ships from specific coastal powers, rather than the magically appearing and disappearing ships we got. Also means anyone can go anywhere so the AI makes a big mess of the map. Boarder gore for days.
Innovations vs tech. I sort of like the way the old tech system worked in ck2, where it spread out slowly from places that researched it. I do also like the new fascination system though. I guess the new techs feel more impactful in some ways but its also more abstract. I want to be able to look at the map and see things or ideas spreading out. I do like the regional innovations, like the desert factions being able to build camel units or the Greeks cataracts. They are tied to regions too so you could have the sort of meeting of cultures the kingdom of Sicily got with Norman Knights and Saracen Archers. Basically I just want to see this system fleshed out more, and maybe be able to tell easier who has what. I don't know if I like it applying to whole cultures or not either. Maybe it spreads from high development to low development areas once researched?
Combat. The combat system has been made both more legible (plus) and simplified (minus). Before there was actually a lot of hidden stuff going. You could stack similar troop types on your right or left flank for the hope of a good combat tactic. I enjoyed that sort of strategic level decision making. Of course I had to go look up tutorials on how the combat system worked to understand it, then reference a wiki for my and my opponents tactical choices. Since I couldn't see how they arranged their army before battle it was almost moot. Now its really just undifferentiated stack combat. They are trying to put in some complexity with different types of men at arms having counters, but again I have no way of knowing what type of units my opponent is picking until the battle starts. So do I go with a few of each type and do they do the same? What is the point of the counter system then?
Negative:
Again I will avoid complaining about a lack of fleshed out things this will be more stuff that is annoying. I will say though even though they tried to bring a lot over there are big chunks missing. I mentioned the ERE, also republics, nomads, and diseases are the big ones for me. More minor but missing are trade and a lot of the flavor stuff like appointing someone master of horse. Also I feel like some things were included that should have been secondary. Yes its nice to be able to officially restore Rome as Byzantium, but I also don't feel like I am playing Byzantium. There is a lack of differentiation between the different cultures, even with the different technologies now. In short I'd take a flavorful Byzantium over a flavorless Rome. Its a fixable problem, but one I hope they get to fixing soon. I am not demanding pure historical accuracy here, its a game, and the depiction of feudal life is always going to be a gross simplification. I just want things to feel different beyond some name changes to unit types.
More critically the laws are greatly reduced down. I get that they use more modern language Agnatic-Cognatic is harder to parse for an average gamer than male preference for example. However they also now have 4 stages of crown authority and no realm laws. You can mess with taxes and levies on an individual level which is fine, but I want more realm level stuff to fight over. Also they have retained the basic function of the Conclave DLC without any of the bite. Let me give an example.
In ck2 I remember one game where I had a horrible malcontent on my council, who everyone owed favors to. As a result he would not let me pass or do anything in my low crown authority state except give him lands. That just made him more powerful and dangerous though. It was painful yet also fun to try and play around. Now yes my strong vassals want seats on my council but if I don't give it to them too bad they dislike me. Doesn't stop them from joining a rebellion against me and I never feel like I am compromising a lot between power and ability. Hell for diplomats I can put someone useful in and run internal diplomacy to lessen the sting for that powerful vassal I passed over. Further the council has remarkably little power. I don't need to care about them vetoing my war for example. There isn't even an option for that to be a law.
Bad UI choices: Missing a lot of overlays. Most notably direct vassals. Yes I can click on my empire and then find a vassal which will bring that information up, but then I have to do that for each kingdom. I just want a button to get right to that overlay. Also I feel like there are fewer cases of right click to go to. You can do it on characters and specific places when looking at titles but that is it. I am running an empire over here and can't memorize all the little places.
Religious conversion happens too fast and there seems to be no rhyme or reason. I have heresy breaking out all over the place, and what is even odder is people converting to say Dualism in the middle of Italy. All the peasants go along with it very quickly too. Religious fever is basically authority from the last game but it swings a lot more wildly. I like the faith system and the way religions are differentiated, but this aspect needs to be worked on. Also would be neat if religions evolved a bit over the course of the game. Maybe after a certain innovation they get another slot or something so catholicism in France and catholicism in Germany are very similar but slightly different.
I am sure I could find more as I play more but that is what stood out to me.
Thanks, Jowy!
