Minor correction from the statement around 9:30 You could play as any date between late 1066 and sometime in 1337. Between 769 and 1066 you could only pick the 769 start date, 867 start date, and later on 936 start date.

One thing I prefer about ck2 over ck3 is the raising of troops. In ck2, troops are raised in the provinces of the vassel they come from, and must move to consolidate. In ck3, troops are all raised wherever you want. In the former system, it takes time for large empires to mobilise, so there was an opportunity for smaller powers to come in with a smaller, more quickly gathered force and wipe out some troops before withdrawing and hoping you got enough. Now the most you can do is maybe siege down a county or two before you have to face the full might of the empire you face. I would have prefered if troops in ck2 had to gather from their individual provinces to make it a lengthier process, but as it is the process is better than in ck3.

I get the feeling that the first 2 chapters were mostly planned from release, hence why the DLC content covered isnt really responsive to what the community has desperately wanted for a while now, like empire content, republic content and theocracy content. I wouldnt be surprised if we saw the major expansion for chapter 3 be byzantine, HRE and generally empire related, and one or two flavour packs for republics and/or theocracy. Altho the catholic church and its influences ought to be a major expansion too.

I still miss having a navy, something about turning a province into my royal dock yard was satisfying.

I think a big dlc CK3 could do that isnt something CK2 had is an expansion around playing as unlanded characters theres tons of interesting things that could be done and the roleplay and simulation mechanics they could add would be great but i also really want to see republics and a trade overhaul first

I still prefer CK2 personally from a content & performance perspective. I do prefer the ability to travel in CK3, but overall CK2 is more enjoyable, and runs better. I miss having Republics, and I would love to see MORE government types, and an expansion to all of them. Nomadic/Adventurer, Tribal, Merchant Republic, Clerical.

From what I've heard from interviews with PDX CK3's development is deliberately slower paced. CK2's fast development lead to a messy codebase which is what eventually put an end to further development, they're trying to avoid the same pitfall by taking it slower this time.

My personal feelings are that CK2 felt like an imperfect simulation of that period. While CK3 feels too zany somehow. Especially when it comes to morality, so much is played for laughs, like a funny skit.

"Why don't they have more start dates" they made it very clear during development that they will not be adding any more start dates aside from the two existing ones. Main reason they cite is that constantly needing to update the histories for every start date whenever a new feature is added takes an immense amount of time which is fair.

I also support a 476 start date, i'm of the opinion that the design philosophy of Ck3 actually works perfectly within the dark ages, way more than within the high middle ages themselves (to be clear this is in no way shape or form a negative view towards ck3 of my part) so a fall of rome or at least a post Heraclius bookmark is not unreasonable.

one thing I miss alot is like guilds from ck2, where you could become a berserker via the guild and get quests to do in order to get better standing or increase your standing or rank in them

As CK3 leans more into roleplay, I would love something like "happyness" as an opposite to stress. Also something like "dreams" could be added: Like a goal you can put on your dynasty (for example converting smth, forming smth, getting rich af).

Honestly the main thing I really want is a actual proper wars and battles because these stuff really annoys me when there is no war council or such

Even if I think there are some structural problems in Ck3 gameplay which may be harder to fix or just require more effort (too easy to climb the whole ladder in a lifetime, once you're emperor nothing to do, tribal only feels like a step before becoming feudal rather than having its own dignity, REPUBLICS etc.) I think Paradox could HUGELY improve the feeling of the game by just writing more events. I imagine it would cost them very little to write more events which are original, different for every culture, and maybe some of them could also be a little strange (i miss that from ck2). At the moment I could be playing in India and I would get the same event I would get as an Asatru in Norway. It's not super bad, but surely gets boring fast.

Now, I only heard about this through a Reddit thread and haven’t confirmed it myself, so take the following with a grain of salt. But supposedly in a previous forum post, one of the CK3 devs said that merchant republics are low priority currently, which is absolutely heart-breaking to hear. As you said in the video, they’re a crucial component of the medieval fabric, and just not being able to play as them or interact with them meaningfully makes the world feel that much more shallow.

My biggest problem with CK3 is the personality system. Personality traits are way too static, and they usually don't change within a lifetime. Once a character aquired a personality trait, it will stick until their death. Something that is not realistic and barely the case IRL. In reality, we learn from experience and change over time. Certain life-changing events can have a huge impact on your personality. Also, you only have three or so personalities and four or more is really, really rare. In CK2, the personality traits were sometimes perhaps too fluid, but overall much more enjoyable. It felt like living a life as a dfferent person whereas in CK3 it feels like whatever happens you stay the same. By the way, if anyone knows a mod that somehow changes the way personality works, feel free to tell me.

I agree we need more start dates, but the devs have said no Charlemagne DLC because it is just too early. They had to make up a lot of the map during that period. 867 is imo a good early start for the game even if in CK2 I loved Charlemagne start. A DLC which added some others, like Century of Iron, the Alexiad, 1204 Latin Empire, Rise of Mongols and Late Medieval like CK2 would be wonderful though. Shorter games if you want, removal of the Byzantine powerhouse opening up Anatolia and Greece and a start with our lovely Great Khan Temujin taking over everything to spice things up.

I generally pefer a lot of the quality of life with CK2 especially the fabrication of claims. I missing the College of Cardinals, the Imperial mechanics of Byzantines, Merchant republics, the Reaper Due mechanics, China and events maybe it is me I will like they missing alot of things to do, especially with the events. If I had to choose two it would be Merchant Republics and Byzantine Imperial mechanics.

Good video, looking at CK3 there are at least 10 regions that need a region pack to make the game as a whole feel like the large map reflects a real diversity of play styles. At a minimum we would need packs for Britain, France, HRE/Germany, Arabia, and the Byzantines. I'd like to see packs for Eastern Europe, North West Asia/Steppe, India, North and West Africa, and Italy. At present we're seeing one region pack a year and we're around half way through the CK2 development cycle. At this rate we probably aren't going to wind up getting all the major regions covered. I get that role playing is the focus of CK3 but the samey-ness of almost every region feels like empty. I like CK3 but I'm holding off buying any more DLC until I see the whole thing fleshed out a bit more.

9:41 If I remember correctly you could actually only play any year between 1066 and 1337 as well as specifically 769, 867, and 936.

Something ive noticed about how i play, is that in the past i could play a ck2 run for centuries without really expanding for rp and not get bored at all (actually the only reason i really stopped playing some saves was new patch releases making my old game corrupted). Nowadays i struggle to do that, while i can certainly do that on ck3 with travelling, tournaments, knights, retinues, the royal court (which i use as rp rather than if its optimal) tho i do agree we need alot of things still for ck3 like republics, more empire mechanics (if its different per culture or per specific title even better), even more options for custom religion creation (let me name my own gods or set different holy sites), etc. that being said, im having a blast with ck3 as it is and really dont think paradox needs to rush the dlc's (so they dont repeat mechanics like in persia). But again, just my own personal opinion.

I think they did polling and it showed not many people played republics, horse lords or the later start dates so they haven’t prioritised those as an inclusion. I think if they are moving away from just adding stuff from ck3 we might not expect these to make a comeback in the way they were in ck2.

As for the start dates paradox hates them. They orrigonally stated that there would be only 1 start date for ck3 but ultimately couldnt leave out the norse systems nor couod they include them in what they consider the true start date of 1066. They note that most players only play in either the 1066 or earliest possible start date in ck2 according to in house data depending on if they want to start with all the features or build up a dominant power early. So they reduced it to two for this game and one for all their other new ones. I strongly disagree with this mindset but that os what the devs said in the lead up to release

To add onto what another commentor suggested, I would love a DLC where you could play as an unlanded character like that one CK2 mod. It would improve the RP aspect tenfold if they just made that simple addition because, really, it would make sense. If you're deposed and reduced to being unlanded, you don't magically get booted out of your dynasty, it would be ridiculous. But CK is basically hardcoded to rationalize things as "if you have no land, you're irrelevant." Completely ignoring the staple mechanic of Claimants. Just something that I didn't give much thought to until CK3 came out with a more versatile engine. If anything, it should be more feasible than in 2.

I’ll be honest, I can’t play CK3 without mods. There is so much content which was not added to CK3 that already existed in CK2 and it feels shallow without it. However, I do not feel that was entirely because of the 9+ years of development for CK2. I played CK2 for years, hundreds of hours, before I eventually tipped my toes into mods. I felt like the base CK3 experience was bland to begin with.

Great video. You have a great voice and cadence for this kind of content, so thank you for being sincere in your delivery.

I am probably one of the few that actually liked Sunset invasions. It’s like the final boss… my games always tend to become awfully stale at the point of invasion, and it always were a breath of fresh air. I’ve really given CK3 a shot. I don’t think it offers as much as CK2… however, I’ve done everything I wanted in CK2 with thousands of hours… been there done that.

I just want my merchant republics 😭

When it comes to wich start date is ideal I would say CK2 got it right. Starting too early in the middle ages just ends with massive Byzantines that will blob hard and starting too late misses out on Charlemagne who is very interesting. It must happen after the Islamic conquests imo

It would be really cool if barons are made playable, all though this WOULD require editing barony titles quite a bit I believe. Could be wrong

One think I like more about CK3 over CK2, despite the latter being overall better in many sense, is that new dlcs do not seem to break game rules as much as new updates for CK2. I remember when, I think with Charlemagne they added defensive pacts and initialy it was impossible to switch off until the ability to choose your own game rule. Same for secret societies, in my playthrough I started before this dlc came out it was crazy how whole states could suddenly become Islamic of Hinduistic out of nowhere. Also multpile changes on how mongols worked (and how broken they were when the defensive pacts were in place). Also also final rework on byzantines turned them basically unplayable, from like semi-feudal system which in my opinion worked well because of titles and faction-specific events but alllowed for cool dynasty playthrough within the empire to this strange imperial type and governance.

Ck3 is inferior because ck2 has great mods. Great works and metropolis should be included too. And empire mechanic was great in ck2 I think they should give this option to cultures which has byzantine tradition. Which will make it unique Also rajas of india was underwhelming. Strugle mechanic can be great for this region. Pratiharas, Palas and rashtrakutas fought each other and each controlled Kannauj at different times. And gaznavid and ghurid invasions were also missing in ck2. Cultures religion etc also need some work. China with different government will be great too.

The only thing with Paradox games and a lot of other 4x games out there, I do not understand why the sequels don't start with all or most of the features of the predecessor with tweaks to make them better. There's a lot of things in CK2 that just are better, that feel better, that have actually built upon the game and genre whereas CK3 is starting out with bare bones all over again. As an example, republics not being in CK3 at release is insane. Tours and Tournaments feels like the only thing that has built upon the game - but it happened 2-3 years too late. Another thing is the shattered world/randomised world stuff. We needed that in CK3's release with a randomised terrain or map builder along with it. And honestly, the feeling of CK2 just feels better - the map feels and looks better IMO.

my favorite feature of CK2, bloodlines is still not implemented. Loved using the matrilineal marriage system to stack multiple bloodlines on my heirs, hoping this gets put in development somewhere down the line

Regarding the earlier start dates, I recall reading somewhere that the reason they don't include them is because the historical record gets murky enough further back that for a lot of the Charlemagne start in II they were essentially making things up for large parts of the map, plus borders for counties would shift and that would require an engine-level rework to do given how baked into the game static county and barony borders are

It is kinda crazy that ck3 just doesn't have ship building or trade. It was such an important part of the era historically and it removes quite huge parts of gameplay. Even just playing on an island nation is entirely different when enemy armies can't just float across the water at you with no pre planning or opportunity to intervene

I just want deeper mechanical flavour in CK3. I don't enjoy how simple so many things feel. It's currently SO easy to snowball, and then the game just becomes boring. More land always equals more power and more money, and eventually you just become a worldwide superpower 50 years after the game starts. I'd love if they introduced in-depth economical gameplay where you are encouraged to manage trade, supplies, and population - and putting of administrative strain on large kingdoms and empires. These things are currently far too abstracted imo. I also think they need to provide more ways to play. Currently, no matter *how* you play, you're always going to be centralizing your realm more and more and trying to increase development in your capital. The only difference between tribal realms and feudal realms is that tribal realms can raid and are also restricted to just a single holding per county. You're just trying to expand more and more in different ways, and you're encouraged to reform your culture and religion to help your expansion. It's not fun after the 5th playthrough. Struggles help with this, but honestly I feel they don't do enough, and once you finish them there's basically nothing left to do. I've always played Crusader Kings for the roleplay, but there's so much simplification and abstraction of the systems and economy in CK3 that really hampers my ability to roleplay. Everything in the game basically just comes down to buffs and debuffs. Your choices in events rarely have any meaningful consequences, and every character you play basically always wind up with a good number in every skill. They honestly ruined the building system from CK2, because there's just objectively better buildings than others and you also basically have no fucking choices anyways (you had so many options in the vanilla CK2 building system of how you wanted to develop your holdings, even though every holding of each type had the same choices). Alliances are WAY too easy to get and if you manage to get an alliance with a powerful kingdom then you basically never have to worry about anything ever again. There's no mechanical incentive to stay as a Duke or Count (except to avoid the annoying Royal Court mechanics - seriously, I was so excited for that DLC to expand the flavour events of managing your realm, but 99% of the events in that DLC are just people complaining to you because your court priest farted too loud or your son is spending too much time painting). The entire game revolves around making numbers go bigger and picking the right choices so your numbers get bigger faster (with a low chance of getting a bad event which makes your numbers get bigger slower). Seriously, why is the only consequence of causing a diplomatic incident between two diplomats because you offer such shitty lodgings, that you get a fucking number and opinion debuff??? I love CK3, but seriously there are so many problems with the game that make me mad anytime I play it. Everything is a mile wide but an inch deep. Playing an Indian ruler is the same as playing a Norse ruler. The only differences between religions are what buffs and debuffs they grant you, and occasionally what cassus belli's you have. There's no interesting objectives to chase except forming kingdoms or taking a piss easy decision to make your whole dynasty even stronger than it already was. You never get to play as a bad ruler or a mediocre ruler (seriously, I don't think I've ever gotten a bad congenital trait except for when I've done inbreeding - and even then I only ever got shit like clubfooted). The game needs depth desperately.

There is one thing that sounds small on paper that makes me massively prefer ck3 to the point ck2 is almost unplayable now. I can’t stand fabricating claims is percentage chance based with the added factor your councilor can get bribed into not bothering to even do it and you have no way of finding out; while in ck3 you can have your bishop fabricate a claim and you know exactly how long it’ll take and it’s guaranteed. The other big things for me is culture in ck3 and the coat of arms/ nation flag designer in ck3 are really amazing. If it wasn’t for the fabricating claims thing I would go back and replay ck2 a lot more then I do rn, because ck2 does have stuff I think it does better then ck3; like events/flavor, the map looks way better with its papery feel, not having the BS royal court, playable republics, bloodlines, societies, and crusades being really fun.

Interesting, just started playing the 2nd game and grabbed the monthly sub to use all the add ons. Having a blast! I really hope some of the features we love get added on by default some things should be offered as a standard.

This is why I never want to see an eu5. The thing that makes paradox games special is the sheer development time and updates their games get. But the downside is it takes years to get to a point that it truly feels full like ck2 or eu4. So yeah, I'll be sticking to ck2 myself until ck3 feels full, and I can do the out of the box crazy stuff I used to be able to do in ck2.

I really want iron century, its the perfect mid ground but wwe will never get it

would love a start date at the fall of the western roman empire. barbarian invasions, establishmente of the feudal system, roman flavor and a date that has never been explored by paradox. researching technology would be a problem and no one would ever play until the end date but I feel like it would be a very interesting option to have.

This is an entirely personal wish, but I desperately crave a fully fleshed out ck3 and romance of the three kingdom mix

The problem with ck3 is the sheer snap om of notifications. The dlc add interesting features, but they boil down to, ah crap royal court time click click and closing pop ups

I think that the reason we don't have a 769 start date yet is simply because the current innovations system isn't balanced around it. If a 769 start date existed, by the time next age can even be unlocked all cultures on the map will have every innovation available completed, maybe except those with super low development. If that expansion comes, it'll probably include a reworked innovation system to allow for that. Personally, the one thing I'm looking forward to the most in CK3 are interactions with China- in whatever form they come.

They don't want to add more start dates because apparently it became a nightmare to add stuff later in expansions, as they'd have to work on each subsequent starting date when adding new things into the game. As for DLC, I think the first 3 years of CK3 DLC are kind of abysmal, nothing about it truly interests me, and I only bought chapter 1 because It was on sale and I like hybrid cultures. I haven't played many games in vanilla ck3 to truly experience it all. Just finished a Harold Godwinson -> Anglo-saxon Crusader state of Valencia playthrough. I would love to see more grand scale DLC in the future. Stuff covering East Slavs, west slavs, and souther slavs. Expansion on Byzantium like what CK2 added, an expansion covering the caliphates, and expansion for the Mongols and China. Along with minor changes for other cultures like the balts, caucasians, finno urgrics, and various migrating peoples. What I want to see most is a map expansion into China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and South East asia. I think this exists in data mining as a blank map, but china apparently exists (?).

Honestly... something i do miss more than i thought was events like the Child of Destiny, the Devilspawn and the cults

It wasn't a DLC per se, but I would really like them to add shattered world and animal kingdoms to CK3. It was such a good addition to CK2.

I miss the silk road, trade posts, and playing as a merchant the most. Overall, though, CK3 is by Paradox's best current product. I've spent too many hours on this game.

The one thing that i strongly dislike in CK3 is the thin notification system. Compared to CK2 i have a lot less awareness of the situation around me. In my last game my king executed his wife. I only found out a year later. It would have been nice to be informed. For roleplay purposes.

Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely we'll ever get earlier start dates, as paradox says they care more about historical accuracy, and that's more difficult the further back you go, especially with ck3's more detailed map. My wishlist is a republic, theocracy, and nomad government types that are fun and atleast somewhat accurate, a Byzantine rework and the ability to start the game with a custom religion and culture. There's hundreds of nit-picks I could make but those are the big things I want

The only thing I like more in ck2 than ck3 is that agot has dragons in ck2 and not in ck3.

Man, the ck3 ending screen. It hurts

i think the new approach of paradox is actually smart. start with a game thats easy to understand and get into to attract players and then slowly build complexity on that

Surprised you left out the fact that in CK3 Christian and Muslim rulers can no longer send missionaries to convert foreign pagan rulers, despite specifically mentioning it in your description of the features of The Old Gods.

personally i liked the intrigue and guild features the most and miss them so much!

You know what feature I think needs to come back? Societies Not as they were, gloriously broken, but how they filled you with something to do CONSTANTLY Little bit of peace time? Here is a quest! You want to interact with someone more? Make them your apprentice! Wow that guy in your Society insulted you in a meeting? Rivalry! People always complain about stat creep, but that was never an issue for me personally because I also got so much CONTENT out of it, I could play entirely with like three pieces of territory and be happy with Societies for most of that gameplay while I wait for plots and claims to start coming up. Societies just added so much character, and it seems like a vaguely easy system, make a new menu, and then just change what all the words say, like they did with CK2, at that point its just writing instead of code and asset work, which would still be a LOT of work, but the majority of it would be writing and that would make players have MORE things to do

Shallow, can sum up a few of the latest editions of Paradox games in my opinion. Taking some of the nuance and strategy out of the game. Like a few of the most liked comments, levy assembly in CK2 vs CK3, start dates, missing history from basically the entire eastern part of the map. HOI4 going with a South America DLC when Germany, Japan and the whole lend lease/war tension system needs a rework. If you played HOI3 or previous titles you know they removed a few very specific features ie command structure being oversimplified. I love Paradox games. But really want them to return to their historical routes while pushing the genre forward. Dont sacrifice all the good you have done in previous titles just to get a new version of an old, but loved, title. Prime Example being City Skylines. Keep up the great work Soul!!!

I was from the team who really....REALLY hated ck3 but after legacy of persia and fate of iberia and the struggle system i feel that i can say that it is a very good game now i love the struggle system and i feel that we only need one more struggle and that would be good and enough from this feature and that is something that ck2 completely lacked and i although love the realism in ck3 as ck2 moved to mythology in it's last years but i would love to see some supernatural things like the immorality events and i although like the bloodlines and i hope to get them back

There is a thing that is missing in CK3. Difficulty. The AI is still a joke in almost every aspect (military, economy, roleplaying). The game is somehow keeps getting easier with each Free Update/DLC (New garrisoning mechanic is OP as hell, Accolades are OP as hell, new Taxation for clans is OP as hell, Clan Harmony Succession is OP.) Diseases are still laughable, I have rulers that live with cancer for 15+ years. Stewardship Perk Tree being completely OP literally since launch. And the (personally) saddest thing about this is that this is obviously the state Paradox wants this game to be in. They know that CK3 is piss easy, but they don't care. CK3 is a grand "strategy" game, where the moment you, even accidentally, make an actual strategic decision, the game is just gonna snowball out of control. If CK2 ran as well as CK3 did, I would never turn on CK3 again. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying CK2 is this insanely hard game. But CK2 had something CK3 doesn't. Randomness that could *completely* derail your campaign. Genius heir getting cancer is a meme in CK2 community, but it's there for a reason. Because it, and things like that, happen. In CK3, I can count the number of times my Ruler has been assassinated on the fingers of one hand. I have 1.5k hours in CK3. I don't even remember if my Heir *ever* got assassinated. And as I said, Paradox knows all this, they just don't care.

Important note, they did say why they have done the DLC;s they have done. They focused on story and rp more than mechanics because they wanted to beef up their coding team before dipping into any mechanically heavy DLC. A process for which should be done about now as per their original plan they shared on the PDX forums (Unless stuff went wrong). For 769, the said that they scrapped it because sources for rulers are more legendary than factual and they are trying to move more towards factual sources.

I dont really care about playing as a republic but i really miss trade and great works

The only thing I want to CK3 is fleshing out of the Eurasian Steppe

The reason you can't choose more start dates in CK3, insofar as I understood it, is that Paradox noticed that starting dates other than the basic bookmarks were hardly ever chosen by players. However it did cost them a lot of time and resources to research what changes each year brought in terms of characters, so they decided to scrap the feature. While I'm saddened by it I can hardly blame them.

thanks for the good video. i personally miss the law system.

My hopes for future DLC >More cosmetics >West African focus >East African focus >British focus >India focus >North and Central European focus >Byzantine/Mediterranean focus >Republics >Massive Religion focus (I hate that you can't reform druidism basically, but you can Hellenism!)

Definitely a lot of what ck2 has that ck3 doesnt have is because of design choices. Governments and religions don't really play differently, as in trying to make flexible systems you reduce distinctiveness. I really liked the old system of unique duchy level buildings that you made choices on, along with the old republic house system, but the new systems are very much against things like that. Knowing paradox they could always make duplicate systems to add fake complexity (looking at you EU4), but the lack of distinction between playing leads me to play ck3 for a week every new dlc, then drop it. This most recent dlc i didn't play until my end of year mega campaign.

Really loved roleplaying in CK2 as godly warrior then getting old and still having high duel skill searching Byzantine empire for best fighters to fight and either die fighting or return with prestige!

Well look at how massive the jump from Ck1 to Ck2 is, then look at Ck2 to Ck3. Ck3 seems to be a stripped down step back like Bethesda did on Elder Scrolls. Not for me, but others will of course feel different.

Thank you for the great video! So in 3 years time I also arrived at conclusion that CK3 is much better thna CK2 at the same time, will see in 5 year time tho! :D

I am starting to think Glitterhoof might fancy me.

Comparing the first 3 yrs of CK2 and CK3 is not the correct one to be done imo, because then we are trying to compare equals instead of a sequel. The fair comparison would be of final CK2 to current day Ck3.

I agree about early starts (that's why I've stuck with CK2), I wish we had one for the fall of the WRE. I think the regional pagan faiths make realms feel unique. Big Christian or Muslim blobs play very samey. I'd love to see Celtic and Egyptian faiths added, or the Germanic faith split into West/East/North variants.

very nice video, especially for someone who didnt play ck2

Republics should totally come back, I'm sure they are planning on doing that at some point!

I miss the charlemagne start, republics and horselords the most

One of the problems of CK3 is that it feels kinda like CK2 but with less in it. So why even bother to play it, when I can play CK2 with more in it and even better roleplay options. The small fact like baronies have a very limited amount of building slots which limits what you can build instead of the CK2 way of you can build everything but you have to choose what you want first. Then the fact that you character has a leveling system where you have to progress in certain areas to be able to do basic stuff that you were able to in CK2 and the only thing that was limiting the use of those things were your skills. CK3 feels like it forces your characters into one direction while in CK2 (if you have the skills) it's your choice. And the genetics in CK3 are all wrong and too broken.

ck2 is more fun to play than ck3

Interesting, I haven't played CK2. How about comparing Imperator: Rome to CK3? People do megacampaigns like that.

Im waiting for the ck3 Reaper's Due incarnation

Maaaaan i miss ck2 musics. the ost are just better.

The differnce I find is that I enjoyed the events from ck2 more than CK3. In ck2, if you decide to not go to war, random intresting events popped up. They didnt tell you out comes and thats how it roled. CK3 on the other hand, even with all this new stuff, feels less random. You aint gonna send a trade deligate off, or build a garden, have a random lord from across the land come and see you, ot even go and trade with the other side of the map. No chinese suprise, or empire events. No random meeting with a witch or meeting of a pope. Ck3 as a vassel is very boring. Ck2 as a vassel is great. CK3 is also easy to become op. Yet empires melt like butter. Ow and my biggest issue is murder, its every fucking wear!

When the republic DLC comes out for CK3 I hope they turn Iceland into a republic, which it was in 1066

I own both and i still play ck2 and only once in a bluemoon play ck3.

The main problem of CK3 aren't the missing DLCs and content, are the mechanics which weren't improved from CK2 or they even got worse. CK2 wasn't perfect, but had a lot of good things. They should have took those and improve, not building from scratch an almost different product. About the specific list of the features, I just don't want to put myself to it and explain all of them, they are present and it's enough to play both games to understand it.

Why did you skip over Holy Fury?

Your voice sounds great!

My main problem with Ck 2 is the map gives me headaches whereas most other strategy games don't Including all other paradox games

Fall of rome is in mods. 476 in TFE and potentially WTWSMS

Priority List: 1-Republics (maybe economy overhaul alongside this) 2-More start dates 3-Cardinall College 4- african and indian flavour. To me if we got this id be sattisfied

I genuinly don't understand why this game is so positively viewed while Vicky III is reviled. I can't stand the direction CKIII has gone in with its focus on being a bad RPG over being a strategy game.

I want more start dates

I want to hear your opinion about Vic3

Invested a lot of time in both and although i still orefer ck2 in a lot of ways ck3 is still ver enjoyable and I have a lot of hope for the game. Features like the new title and character customization are great and Im hopeful for the games future :)

Worst thing in ck3 is the UI looks like windows excel. No art into something so important, no immersion

After several videos (including yours) and comments, I have come to the conclusion that CK2 offers more than CK3. Of course, the big strong point of CK3 are the 3D characters, but seeing historical figures in their "photo" is very good too. No no no, CK2 is not too complicated a version. In fact, I think I'll buy CK3 just to play the Bronze Age mod. This will allow me to appreciate this era more, because clearly, CK3 is just an oversimplified version of CK2 and I will only appreciate it by playing another era (like the Bronze Age), and not the 'medieval ages. No question of forgetting Crusader Kings 2 and all its potential.

The positions they take for not adding any additional start dates make no sense. I can see not wanting to take the time to add the option to play literally any date, but at least make it the major 5 from ck2, or as much as the additional dates of interest like the alexiad, or latin empire periods. The game is stale with only 2 start dates

How does an expansion pack CALLED "Legacy of Persia" not properly flesh out Zoroastrianism and its branches???

TLDR; I question where Paradox is putting their resources. Maybe Paradox doesn't think they can put out anything comparable to the mod equivalents for a reasonable price so they have opted out. Or they don't want to deal with the argument that they are reselling content. Which has never bothered them before. Also something you missed in this video is while there were 9 expansions there were also 39 other DLC for the game. Which included music, unit packs, portraits, Dynasty shields and the Character designer DLC. While some of this stuff has made it into the base game it has made it in a more generic version of CK2. However this sort of reinforces the question of what is PDX doing with it's resources? Sure CK3 incorporates a lot of the CK2 DLC into its base game which is great as a lot of it is core gameplay at this point. However, that in itself is the problem and a source of annoyance, its in the base game. So, why 3 years in have we not gotten the game fleshed out in a comparable way. The first three years of CK2 were marked by large changes that fleshed out cultures and religions and allowed for whole new ways to play the game. CK3 has 3 DLC that sort of do that Northern Lords, Fate of Iberia and Legacy of Persia. One that is basically The Old Gods DLC and two that use the exact same system in a slightly different way and effectively turn those regions into neigh impenetrable bubbles. Meanwhile the community have huge conversion mods like EK2 and AGOT that are essentially their own games and RICE, CFP, EPE, Cultural Armies and VIET that have fleshed out huge portions of the game.

I don't understand why Paradox shies away from releasing a DLC titled, "The Far East" which would include a playable China, Japan, Korea, etc. It would be immensely popular.