I've been seeing a lot of comments on this video in 2024 debating whether my points are valid or notifying me of the upcoming Chapter III. Please recognize that this video was about comparing the games as of June 2023. I honestly can't give you input on what's changed since then, as I have not played CK3 avidly since that time. P.S. I have the time and ability to make some more videos right now, so feel free to let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like to see!

I miss the art in ck2 events. In ck2 each event had a painting made by an artist and usually they were amazing, meanwhile, ck3 has your character making a weird face over an obscured and often generic background.

CK2 feels as if you're creating history, whereas CK3 feels more of playing a simulation game. I think this is apparent with the 2D portraits in CK2, because the portraits feels along the lines of iconography moreso than a portrait.

The CK2 levy system was far superior and much more authentic than that of CK3. That you had to raise levies from their respective regions and actually gather an army, as opposed to just teleporting all 40 thousand available men from Thrace to Iran, created situations in which you could have a local army take care of bandits, or where smaller kingdoms, who could quickly consolidate their forces, had an advantage over larger empires, which required weeks to gather their deathstacks from all over their realm. Among a host of other differences, the change to the levy system is my biggest gripe with CK3.

Things I miss from CK2 - Trade Republics, you can play them. - the vassal screen where you can see list them by opinion. - the vassal tree where you can eyeball how many troops you'll face.

one thing i really liked about ck2 was you actually had to manage marriages for claims and expansion planning several generations in advance in ck3 you get every claim you could want in just a few months

In CK2 I was once a weak and cowardly Norse, but fighting years in wars and duels I became strong, brave, cruel may seem noble but I cheated in many of these duels, I united Norway, I killed Ragnar in duel was a magical campaign. 12 hours of play feels like minutes in ck2 and that I don't feel in ck3

Good video! For me CK2 always had a very 'Arthurian' vibe, with all the supernatural things that can happen. I really miss that in CK3.

One of my favourite mechanics in Ck3 is dread system. It is a way to play as a ruthless tyrant without getting deposed in seconds and I really missed the feature like that when I was playing ck2. But I agree with most of what you said in the video. it feels like in ck2 you need to go through generations of overcoming challenges, obstacles and planning to achieve aomething great while in ck3 you can do this in the lifespan of a single character and from that moment you'll snowball and become only stronger without any challenge.

I love how in CK2 you could go on drastically different paths in your life, not just choose between different event chains like the CK3 lifestyle system. You can be the realm builder guy and develop your realm's economy; you can become a scion of a monastic order, sponsoring the faith and become beatified or canonised after you die; you can be an alchemist and philosopher, and write a magnum opus; you can even dedicate an entire playthrough to bringing forth the arrival of THE LITERAL ANTICHRIST and become the spawn of Satan yourself.

I had a rurikid russia run in ck2 (ironman) campaign and have never had such a cool experience in ck3. I conquered all the way south, and it WAS HARD keeping the realm together, made it all orthodox, then one of my characters became a canonized saint, leading to the bloodline being blessed, but BEFORE all that, the PLAGUE swept through my lands and I barely survived, my entire court alongside most my family were killed by it and there was a severe power vacuum in my realm, which would cause a chain reaction into the successors for a civil war. I also joined a crusade once, don't know how, I just did. We failed.

Nothing changes over time in CK3 (this is part of the lack of flavor you mentioned). I have only ever gone to 1453 once for the achievement, and it was a slog. 1400 felt no different than 1066. My campaign felt pretty much complete by 1200. Sure the armies get bigger, and your gold goes up, but what does that change for gameplay? Laws and The Black Death would improve this dramatically and are my #1 and #2 hoped for features. I'm stoked for the new Legacy of Persia flavor pack. I hope it's more like Northern Lords than the Fate of Iberia.

I liked how fluidly the transition from ck2 to eu4 was when playing mega campaigns. You could really feel the differences in eras between the darker and more foreboding dark ages and it’s transition to a more hopeful renaissance era. I think the soundtrack also complimented this and the art style helped cement the game as a different period of time, just as eu4 illustrates the renaissance and Vic 2s art portrayed an industrial world.

CK2 will always be more fun because of the genuine danger you can face to your playthrough. My favourite example is in CK2 when I conquered most of Britannia ( I really like making Britannia only when I own all of it so its one colour) with a strong genius martial who was nigh on unbeatable in battle died due to cancer. My realm was broken down into 4 Kingdoms that being Ireland England Wales and Scotland which all went to my 4 sons, 2 of them lost their titles immediatly due to faction demand so thats most of the work I spent an entire generation on gone because he died at age 43 to cancer. A single small event broke down my empire and I loved it because it seems like something that would've genuienly happened, as if he didn't die rebels wouldn't of stood a chance due to most of the kingdom loving him (and in my head fearing him due to his military prowess). Moment he unfortunatly passes they strike and undermine his entire lifes work. Closest I came to this in CK3 was that the wrong son inherited something he shouldn't of so i just assassinated him and got it back within a year

A point about the traits in CK2 being so much harder to get than in CK3 is that in CK2 when you get one of those characters crazy traits you really notice it. My favorite campaign in CK2 was Habsburg-ish campagin where I tried to get the borders of Austro-Hungary rather than go for the HRE. It was a normal campagin for 200 years, taking opportunistic wars against my neighbors, marrying strategically, assasinating unruly lords, etc, slowly forming the kingdoms I wanted and increasing my authority. Suddenly I have a daughter who's possessed. She's the 4th of six, but by the end of it, she's killed off all her siblings. Not wanting to lose the Emperorship, I allow female rulers (hows that for historical?) and she takes the throne, and she turns out to be an absolute beast! She's cruel, she's beautiful, and the devil himself is on her side. She has insane martial skill and manages to wreck havoc on the remaining mongols, she massively expands the borders southwards into the balkans, and mercilessly imprisons, banishes, and kills any lord who even looks at her sidewise. The absolute ruler has crushed all her enemies outside and within, accomplishing more in a lifetime than all her predecessors had done for two centuries. And then... the crusades happened. Turns out that when a massive satanic empire gobbles upeverything overnight, the rest of the world notices, and puts up a fight. Suddenly I'm facing holy wars from the catholics, the slavics, and mongols decide to jump in aswell. In a final last stand against the catholics, Satan claims her soul, and she dies in battle! The empire is torn apart and what is left shatters. The balkans, hungarians and czechs break free from the empire, and the lords lower the crowns authority with impunity. I was back to square one, only having the kingdom of Austria to my name, and a couple random holdings scattered throughout the former realm. I'd never had anything like this happen before or since, and it really shows all the things you've highlighted in this video. In CK2 you don't normally find yourself as a superhuman steamrolling the rest of the world, and when you do, the AI puts up a fight and is even comptetent enough to stop you. CK3 never really managed to give me that rush again, so I've always thought CK2 to be the better game.

For me it's being able to see unit types, it's nice to see the returns of investing in your Demesne Holdings when you raise your levies. Sure, it could be tedious trying to organise the flanks and center of an army when it came to doing so with larger stacks, but there was the roleplay of assigning my marshal to lead the center my brother or son or whoever on one of the flanks and myself on the other flank. Shit was kino, son

One gripe I have with CK3 is the County, Duchy, Kingdom, and Empire icons on the map are all the same no mater what religion you are. I really like the Dragon Pagon icon and the Aztec one as well. I know this is a very minor thing, but the amount of flavor from the little things that CK2 has really had me enjoying every campaign.

Your commentary on the gameplay loop in CK3 was spot on to how I feel. I feel this issue with “sameness” is exactly what drives me to play total conversion mods for CK3 much more than vanilla at this point.

What annoys me to no end about CK3's UI is how massively inferior the drop down 'current situation' list is to CK2's separate and unique icons that would run across the top of the screen. They were not only easier to read at a glance but they also added character which CK3 sorely lacks.

In ck3, the story advances the grand strategy In ck2, the grand strategy advances the story

CK2 is amazing and the stories it tells are unmatched by CK3 in it's current form. After the king of Wales and Ireland died, I inherited just wales and it's many unruly vassals, a lot of them my spiteful younger brothers, and just one county. Meanwhile my brother inherited most of Ireland, and in a years time amassed a large army with allies all across Briton to attack me. I lost battle after battle and my kingdom was about to be subjugated. Only then my mother, which was my warring brother's vassal, succeeded in starting a faction and putting me on the throne of Ireland without fighting a battle! Needless to say the war was over and all was well, but mother would go on to convert to heresy and conquer lands herself. She somehow grew incredibly powerful, I couldn't dare go against her or make her convert. I couldn't kill my brothers and inherit their titles without incurring her wrath. She killed two of my wives and one of my daughters. She really wanted to rule the dynasty from the shadows, all the while I was dealing with constant revolts and foreign wars. But when she killed my genius son and and heir I decided enough was enough. With a very small chance of succeeding, I managed to imprison her and promptly executed her. Ever since I ruled as a tyrant over my kingdom, killed all of my remaining brothers and stole their lands. I would go on to be assassinated by my uncle, my father's brother which was also secretly bedding my mother and got mad that I killed her. Kingdoms were split again, between my daughters this time. Absolutely wild

it felt so good leading armies in CK2 the events were cool , there were duels , you could lead armies with multiple leaders , during the battle you saw the flanks going in charging and the troops and terrain mattered in battle.

I respect the fact that, just like CK2 released in 2012, so did your mic

Well documented review. I could not agree more.

Ck3 streamlined a lot of things. Some for the better and sadly some for the worse. I do for example prefer that county conversion is a progress bar instead of random chance (converting counties in ck2 was very painful). Supplies, while not perfect, are better than month-tick attrition in ck2, which lead to sometimes a single day making the difference if half your army evaporates or not. However ck3 also falls short when it comes to most of things warfare related. Men at arms the way they were implemented at launch (heard they got changed a bit, but didnt play ck3 in a while) just broke them game. The way levies become useless really quickly makes having vassals pointless, since they only contribute overpriced cannon-fodder. Feudalism was pointless in the feudalism game... why?

In CK2 I took the easiest start because I wanted fun while still playing ironman and for 2-3 generations I was genuinely stuck as the Kingdom of Leon and Galicia, then suddenly I had a succession crisis where my granddaughter eventually came to rule. She had bad skills and the realm was very unstable with me genuinely considering an abandonment to the run, but through perseverence I managed to stabilize the situation and she turned out to be my best ruler.

You just made me download ck2 after not playing it for 5 years at least. Thank you!

CK3 lacking diseases & epidemics mechanic is so bad... And I really liked Societies from CK2. I know lifestyle choices are suppose to replace those but they feel so mechanical and repetitive. I wish CK3 added societies with lifestyle choices. Also CK3 lacking wonders from CK2 is real bummer But man, you need a better mic

This video sums up really well my opinion about CK2 and CK3. My biggest problem with CK3 is its design philosophy. Mainly its more casual friendly approach, its lower difficulty and more predictable nature. You mentioned many things related to these in the video, I want to add some. Council jobs are really boring in CK3, I often just leave them on some default option, and even when I need them for conversion or something, their outcome is predictable, the time they take is predictable, they will basically always succeed. While in CK2 I often change where and what my councillors do and even then I could only hope that they will give me the desired outcome. The skill trees are boring as well, you just choose a focus, wait and select what perk you want to unlock, there are some events, but they are mostly forgettable. While in CK2, focuses feel like your character really dedicates their life to it, there were one long event chain dedicated to most of them and it really feel like you have to work for a lifestyle trait. Sure, there are missing features, but they might be added later, the design philosophy above will probably never change. The AI update and harm events give a bit hope that they want to make the game a bit more challenging at least. I want to add that I also modded both CK2 and CK3. CK3 is far better in this aspect than CK2. CK2 has extensive modding possibilities too, but in CK3 you can do almost anything. But I found some code parts that really reinforce this my previous statements about CK3. Characters can only get sick and start murder schemes every 5 years with fairly low chances. So like, you can't get sick at the age of 62. Also, only one AI can plot against the player at a time, there is a hard block that prevents anyone from starting a new one. If the player is childless, they get insane bonuses to fertility, meaning that they are basically guaranteed to get children if they have a spouse. There are also hard limits that prevent characters from having too many children (I think the player can bypass that), which is like 2 or 3 for landless characters. CK2 had none of that. It feels like they only wanted to create a masquerade for the player, not a somewhat realistic world. The only similar thing in CK2 is societies, there the AI doesn't do too much, most of the events and decisions related to them are almost just player only.

I miss reapers due. The sheer PANIC the first time I played a full campaign as England as I saw it approach across the map, desperately trying to build up hospitals before it was too late... I rarely get that anxiety. Also, I feel like rulers live too long in CK3. In most CK2 games I would panic at age 40. Most of my CK3 characters live to 70, easy. Sickly child or courtier? 90% of the time they're absolutely fine.

I am just gonna say it, due to the sheer smoothness and hyper developed character life, CK2 is my go to game if I'm ever making a massive mod.

One of my most memorable video game moments of all time was in CK2 when my ruler did not have heir for some time, so the event where the court physician concocted a aphrodisiac to boost the performance was launched, usually the concoction either helps or is harmful, but in one rare occasion it was insanely powerful which prompted my ruler to attack every single woman in his court and sired children with all of them, but what killed me was that couple of months later after this the additional event launched where my ruler lost interest in women and turned gay. I lost it then. CK3 lack this character, the combat is boring, and the lack of versatility in terms of events is really discourages long campaigns which is frankly shame in CK 2 I often did early start date till 1453 runs because I knew I had to fight ever step of the way ,unless its really late game. In addition what I would welcome in CK3, more RNG events, not just debiases, but weather events and disasters like a hurricane that might sink your ships with troops, or a volcano eruption or massive flood that devastate your infrastructure, the devs are so focused on the "sim" part that they forget that the game is actually grand strategy also. Edit: would have killed them to add the CK 2 OST (with the DLC songs) to CK3, even as an add on for a buck or 2, CK2 even had the habit to play Christmas song if you played the game on Dec 25, which show fine attention to details in that game where such is lacking in CK3.

The sound design in ck2 is a fucking god send

CK2's warfare surpasses that of CK3 in many aspects. Engaging in a battle for survival against a stronger enemy and the need to micromanage and preserve each levy, regardless of its size, just to raise a force that stands a chance of victory when defending a mountainous position near a river with commanders possessing suitable traits... it was always immersive and never got old for me. The feeling of triumph after a hard-fought victory and the crushing weight of defeat added to the immersion. In contrast, CK3 allows for immediate levy raising, even in vast empires where such swift mobilization would be unrealistic. Furthermore, battles in CK3 tend to be predictable ( the game even tells you ) and easily won by exploiting min-maxed levies, which diminishes the immersive and strategic elements of warfare. Maybe CK3 could add modes that allow players to choose if a mechanic is simple or complex, thus adding to immersion and flavour without losing its admittedly fair approach of simple gameplay for new players.

I pretty much agree with everyrhing. But dificulty is by far the biggest issue of ck3. You can add ton of features but if you can just fix every problem with gold and you can build unbeatable army in 2-3 generations you have no motivation to use those features. Fixing AI would significantly improve gameplay.

CK3 sameness issue really boils down to playstyle. If you don't change how you go about a problem you gonna have the same loop over and over. I played development/invention rush, wide dynasty (my favorite at the moment), diplomatic court and just the pure brute force playstyle. Every game felt different and had a different set of challenges to solve. To be fair these were all multiplayer games and alot of fun came from the interaction too but the game loop was also an important part. For example the wide dynasty playstyle was just extremly funny. I just spread my dynasty on as many thrones as possible and stayed a duke for most of the game until I made the archduchy of austria via decision. The problem CK3 has in my opinion is more that you are not enough incentivized to change it up, while in CK2 you needed every trick in the book only to survive so you look every game how to overcome your challenges and find new strategies to do so

Well said and well thought out!

Glad to see someone putting my thoughts into video form. Im still playing CK2 to this dsy while ive dropped 3 months ago. Deus Vult!

I always have this one memory from my first mega campaign on CK2, the story of the unfortunate Emperor Aethan. This guy became emperor almost by a divine fluke; his brother (or nephew idk) died from being a long bout of illness, then the teenage son of the guy dies in a random battle so Aethan now rules because primogeniture. Aethan’s beloved wife had died during the war and it broke him, becoming a drunk and depressive. His vassals were not receptive and he butted heads, particularly with one of the kings and tried to curb his power. It’s important to note my empire was plagued by quite literally hundreds of pretenders which meant none of these guys could rule easily. Already dealing with a potential civil war another guy attempts to usurp him. This, coupled with the other crap, finally breaks Aethan and he commits suicide, unloved and alone after 2 miserable years of rule.

One time there was an outbreak of measles in my realm. I had to close the gates to stop the spread and my whole family was locked in their castle. We slowly but surely ran out of food and eventually my Count had to eat his family members to stay alive. My playthrough didn’t even last 20 years of in game time.

Lately I've finally gotten close to finishing my restoring rome campaign(starting in beneveto italy)in CK2 and converting the entire realm to Hellenism via the secret factions was a slog, it took me 5 tries and on my final attempt the whole realm callapsed in Anatolia early on and the catholics invaded greace at the same time. So my line fought and saved the empire regaining all the territory lost. Now that my line finally received the title pontificus maximus after reforming the hellenic faith and restoring rome, i feel like I've earned it!

Hey man, amazing video and very interesting analysis!

Going to subscribe to see you become the next big thing! Keep it up!

One thing i fail to understand about CK3 and it boggles my mind is that they had the PERFECT ocassion to introduce Artists in the game with the artefact mechanics and they didn't. Like paintings, portraits of rulers, sculptures, crazy inventors, alchemists coming to your court asking for sponsorship and when they finished the work you could put that artefacts in your court. How awesome would it have been after 3 or so generation to still have the portrait of your grea-great grandfather into your throne room? Instead we have the bland events for swords, generic jewelry or tapestries that get repeated over and over again, its like they took tye most boring parts of crafting and put it in the game instead of the more exciting stuff.

"I was just being a cynic and having fun bro, I can't be blamed for joining Satan"

That was a very pleasantly thought out comparison video. Nice job. Now I wanna buy Ck2.

I'm quite new to ck2 only first playing it in like 2022 or something when it became free. But I love the different scenarios and things you can do. I reformed Rome, conquered nearly the entire Balkans as a viking and converted constantinople to Norse. I created viking hispania. Reformed the Persian empire as a zoroastrian. Really love the game. You can actually go out and do whatever you want without the game becoming overcomplicated.

Great vid! Ended up playing some ck2 again after

Great video essay, CK2 is indeed king, the point you made on little interface audio details in CK2 really sums up the whole thing

Top 3 things I miss: 1. Wiki links and overall historical information. (so easy to implement, wtf) 2. Sounds when clicking on things; all the UI clicking soundsi n CK3 are the exact same. 3. Death sounds.

very enlightening video

I'd pay a thousand dollars for a version of C2 with the CK3 visuals.

I wish there was more supernatural events in ck3, they added a unique feeling to ck2 of a mysterious unknown world; much like it was back then.

Agree with the content of the vide, and glad you address the poor mic in the description. One other note is your points would be MUCH clearer if you the video shown to the game you were currently talking about. If you were comparing CK2 to God Of War, points would be obvious, but CK2 n CK3 are so similar I feel this optical defined line would provide clarity as you spoke, cheers.

In my current CK2 campaign a character of mine I called 'The Chosen One', a strong genius, was faced with an uprising so big it wiped out all of my savings (I barely achieved White Peace), since I had to hire many mercenary companies despite my large armies, and he was assassinated after two years of rule. His son then died of the Black Plague, wiping out my main line of Carolingian rulers. One of my best rulers in this run actually had the trait 'dull' and I had little hope for him, when he ascended the throne.

Entertaining video i hope you upload more in the future

completely agree, great video

#55 Really like how you articulated the differences between the two games. Have found CK3 a bit more hollow but looks good. CK2 with its expansive dlc is a truly great game. The features you mention will all come, in the next few years through 100's of dollars of DLC.

despite not playing ck3 i can agree that ck2 is a big challenge i once played as the last carolingian ruler and i managed to claw my way up after 3 or 4 rulers to the position of french king and into francian emperor after that best run ive had aside from my AtE California and my umayyad 769 resurgence runs

Didn't think I'd be reinstalling CK2 today - great video man

I'm very much in the same boat as you at the moment. Some things are better in CK3: the feudal obligation system, the dynamic culture- and religion system, the Stress system is good if a little clunky, the multiplayer is more fun and stable, the Tours & Tournaments features are great, separating friendly and hostile schemes is a good change. But yes, I agree that CK2 is still overall the better and more replayable game. There are way more flavour events, and the game throws you way more curveballs which keeps every playthrough much more unique. And yes, what you mention at the end is probably my main gripe with CK3: characters don't change. Crusader Kings is primarily a role-playing game that is focused on its characters, and yet in CK3, none of them are unique. The very predictable Lifestyle system, the same for every ruler, just makes it so that you will become great at whatever you focus on, especially with the huge amount of genius/beautiful characters. It also doesn't feel organic at all: in CK2, if you started executing people, you could become Cruel. If you focused on Martial, you could become Brawny. If you joined a monastic order, you would become Humble and lose Lustful/Gluttonous. In CK3, none of that happens. If you focus on Martial, you just get better at Martial. Your character doesn't change. It's a shame, because the Stress system does leave a lot of room for that. The timed claims system doesn't help: the whole point of this game is marrying your way up, the way a real medieval ruler would do it. Just putting your Court Chaplain (why him, btw? Why not your Chancellor?) in a province and waiting for the inevitable claim just makes this feel too much like an EU4-style map painter. I'm also really not a fan of the UI. It looks pretty at first glance, but it manages to cover so much of the screen while actually hiding some of the most important information multiple clicks deep. Very important notifications are buried among irrelevant ones in the big number on the top, and the huge list of notifications on the bottom right. Crown Authority and the Regency system are very easy to miss, in fact it took me many hours before I even noticed them. The actual tasks of your councilors are tiny icons next to an enormous portrait of them, when it should be the other way around. The character finder is buried under a few dots on the bottom right. Character modifier icons are tiny. Trait icons are too 'busy' and overdesigned: even after ~80 hours I don't have an intuitive idea which trait is which from a first glance. Your family tree, one of the most important screens in the game, is hidden behind several clicks, and even then, to get an overview of the entire thing requires multiple additional clicks. And for a game which focused so much on getting a pretty terrain map, getting the actual terrain information is not intuitive at all, and it comes at the cost of a clear political map. You touched on it, but I agree that it doesn't make sense just how much income you lose at a change in rulership. I've generally found it very difficult to get a good feeling for why I'm earning as much or as little as I do. Warfare is also quite annoying in CK3. Without an 'attach allies to army' button, you just kind of have to hope that your AI allies will follow you, and while the army AI is a lot better than CK2, sieging and countersieging can feel like a game of whack-a-mole which extends wars unnecessarily. Plus, you better have enough Trebuchets! Up until Tours & Tournaments, I really wasn't very hopeful about CK3. But that expansion changed my outlook to a much more positive one. This game still has a lot of potential: it just needs much more love and polish. The overview of the two timelines you showed was very indicative of that. CK2 had so many DLCs that added so much to the game, just one after the other in rapid succession, and for a price that was less than half of the average CK3 DLC price. Meanwhile for CK3 the only major DLC we had for a long time was Royal Court, and it was basically just a standalone gimmick, for double or triple the price of game-changing DLC like Old Gods or Sword of Islam.

3:00 that is a real shame, since it's one of the most interesting aspects of The Middle Ages: the slow forming of mature states and the centralizing power of the Monarch through the buildup of laws and institutions founded on what the Romans left behind. THAT's what Royal Court should be about.....

Bravo! 👏🏿

CK2 felt immersive in a weird way; it was less realistic with the goofy portraits, but the world felt a lot better. The events were a lot cooler as well. I'd become a modestly powerful ruler in the HRE, from glorious Ulm, but things were pretty meh. But then, my ruler felt the fear of death, and undertook a campaign to achieve immortality. And, against all odds, he succeeded. I spent the rest of maybe a couple hundred years ruling as a secluded, immortal God-King shaping the course of human history from the greatest realm in the world, Ulm. That kind of crazy stuff leaves a very noticeable hole in CK3.

It's fun starting small and working your way up to forging your own empire, I usually don't play alot past that cause it seems at that point its just babysitting trying to keep dejure intact etc it's still a blast and you can learn about different cultures and real kingdoms.

There's plenty of issues with CK3 but if I could get them to focus on something it would be to make the game substantially harder. While it wouldn't fix the other issues, I think you'd notice them a lot less if there were serious challenges you could get invested in solving. Like you touched on, the feeling of accomplishment overcoming a difficult situation is a big part of what makes CK stories engaging and memorable. I feel like pretty much all my time in CK3 is spent with my brain basically turned off, because the game never pushes me to actually engage with it beyond a surface level. Just as a little example the other day I did the "Kings to the Seventh Generation" achievement. It's classified as hard but literally all I had to do was win a couple easy wars then used "claim throne" on the king. Cherry on top is that even though he was almost done crushing an independence war the dude just gave in to me without a fight, even though my faction was only at ~70% support.

you are getting my price for fastest narrator!

THANK YOU

Oh well, what bad nostalgia can do. In memory, old games always appear in their best light.

I really miss supernatural events. Also i miss plagues, that were just added and I didn't play with them yet. Great projects. I really loved them. Don't know why, but by building them you could literally go down in history. There could be so much interesting ideas of representing great projects in CK3, i don't understand why are they not adding them to the game

In the elder scrolls mod, I opted to play a Vampire Necromancer. Suffice it to say, that was something very much difficult and it felt harder than the CK 2 counter-part. So when I ended up taking over and becoming King, I was on a very wobbly house of cards. And it was this way the entire way as long as I remained the same religion. Even with Max Dread, stuff was sensitive. But this was a very narrow circumstance.

what mods would you recommend for ck2?

societies! really hate how those are completely lacking in ck3. but also miss the stories that just unfolded in that game without almost any effort by the player. I will never forget when my empress of Hispania took the throne at 15 and joined the benedict order and became so virtous that by the time she died at 30 something from disease she had become a saint. ended up naming a grand cathedral after her. i find i forget my characters in ck3 pretty quick

Great video

Yea im gonna start ck2. But can someone answer this question. Is it like the other paradox games where you need 20+ dlcs before the game is any good and if so, what dlc should i prioritise?

Good video, dude

CK3 is one of my most played games on steam and easily in my top 10 favorite games, but I’ve never played CK2. This vid really showed what I was missing. Idk if I’ll like it as much but I’m def checking it out.

I feel like the vikings in england is significantly overpowered as well, they always win against the AI Alfred and kill him in my games

In ck2 I had a daughter, after her birth my King of England got a vision of the great things she would go on to do, thousands of men bowing to her knees and great conquests. Suffice to say these things happened, after a Crusade she would be put on the throne of a now weak and angry egyptian kingdom. She would engage in multiple duels and quell many rebellions until she had gained control and was a powerful empress, unfortunately her husband which she had been forced to marry had other plans. The Empress was planning on bribing the catholic church to divorce him and have children of her own dynasty through matrilineal marriage, unfortunately after the birth of her first son (Which was of her husband's dynasty) she would then be kidnapped and killed by her husband. And that all happened just through basic gameplay. In CK3 to get a cool story it feels like you really have to WANT a good story and have to imagine stuff which isn't happening in game, you gotta force it. Anyway really good vid, underrated to say the least. Will be subscribing.

the ck2 coalitions update came near the end of ck2 support didnt it? & was the same patch were you could attach armies both ways & could order allies to target siege? either way ck3 is too easy without AE or bad boy penalty.

I’ve played both, CK2 after CK3, CK3 is more RP focused and already has most of CK2s best mods like ATE and AGOT which are even more fun with CK3. And they have a Crusader wars mod which combines Attila Total war 1212 AD mod with CK3, so the modding community is definitely better which means there’s a lot of potential within the game

i never played CK2, this video makes me wanna give it a shot

Definitely the lack of flavor between culture annoys me, but with more DLC it could be fixed. What also annoys me, and unfortunately I don't know if it's fixable, is character progression giving you 'magic' 'arcady' traits that give you for example claims without having to work for them.

I agree with you 100%.

i second everything you said (10000h+ in CK, Ck2 and CK3)

I feel like Central Asia could use a lot of work especially because this is such an interesting period for the region

Excellent

So true, I spent way more time in ck2 then I have been able to in ck3

totally agree! do you know any good youtube channels for ck2 plays?

Good news! chapter 3 looks like it will be fire, landless play, byzantium administration, (plagues which have come out) and some other stuff i forgo

I never actually gpt to play ck2 but this has convinced me to give it a go and dit h ck3

CK2 wasn't perfect, but it was really, really good. Also, as part of its long life, playing the game felt very different at different points in time. I feel like CK3 expects you to shape your own lore or experience, with how much influence you have over your culture and your religion. In CK2 it was at times a struggle to even change from one religion to the other if you wanted to, not to mention that there were only a finite number of religions to choose from. I remember so many games I played in CK2, like when I started as William the Conqueror in an early version, or lucking my way into becoming the Emperor of the ERE through marriage and murder, or being an evil demon worshiper who used dark arts to get rid of my enemies. I once tried to unite the Rurikovich realms via seniority succession and was cursed for my landgrab by having absolutely unfit, inadequate old men as my heirs and eventual player characters. CK3 doesn't tell these stories, at least not to the level the previous game would.

well made video

Good points. I'm not sure how much you've played around with settings to make it harder. I think arguments could use more balance. For example, I think you could agree a lot of the mechanics you enjoy also turned a lot of players off to CK2. Complexity has been a criticism of CK2. A lot of the changes you aren't keen on seem to have been made in response to critiques of CK2. And the changes seem to have really broadened the appeal.

My main thing that I prefer in CK2 over CK3 is definitely the AI, border gore, and I prefer CK2's levy and retinue system over CK3's limited and small men-at-arms regiments.

Talking about a game that had an 8 year lifespan vs that of less than a 3 year lifespan that has got many more people enjoying paradox games. CK2 still exists and nothing is stopping anyone going back to play it. That all sounds win/win to me.

I always love the moments in ck2 where your character just decides to loose their brain because they fought in a close battle. Or those multiple times i was forces to play a 5 year old kid and my regent decided he wanted more money, so you need to change the spy master to someone that is capable of defending my people but loyal enough that he doesn't kill your ass. Also many times you are forced to do horrible things, like remove someone because they are going to use any chance they have to kill you or take over everything you have.

Still got my 2012 box. What a cool game.

Decent video, the mic issues can be solved, but the ideas behind the content are solid.

I think the only criticism i have a gripe with in this video is the UI, i think CK3s' is undeniably better and after hours and hours of playing CK2 the sounds just get insanely annoying, especially when you quickly click between menus and the they start overlapping, i wish they had gone all out with the paper/medieval theme for the UI in CK3 tbh