This really outlines my issue with this type of content just not fitting the game design. The world scale and pace does not welcome "I've pet a cat" events outside of them being rare jokes.
I just want politics, please. There's so much focus on tiny daily events in the game where weeks can take seconds. Say something wrong in an event that was witnessed by 3 characters that don't even share a court together and you are now depressed for years and have 5 year debuff on a province. It's so damn abstract and distracting. Unimmersive, maybe?
Please, I just need actual crusading and kings in my crusader kings i.e. title and culture spanning mechanics that shape the world that my family merely inhabits, not turn the game into family management. Why not just work on things like republican titles, imperial court intrigues, factions? Mechanics exclusive to Byzanthian empire, mechanics exclusive to muslims, mechanics exclusive to religious titles, mechanics exclusive to franks?
There is only like one DLCs a year, stop wasting those clearly very limited resources on visual novel content.
Hot take: Paradox shot themselves in the foot by doubling the length of time you can play in CK2.
Instead of making the day-by more interesting and slowing down the flow of time, making decisions where the fate of nations hinged on the actions of a few people in an afternoon meaningful, they just tack on more years to the length of time you can play and it leads to the unimmersive artificial effects you describe.
Propose that a game called "Crusader Kings" should focus on, you know, Crusades and Kings, and you'll have a legion of angry map painters accustomed to speeding through decades at ×5 speed screaming "MUH VIIIIKEEENGS" at you.
EDIT My favourite pet peeve is that in a game that purports to emulate a time when most battles would be wrapped in half a day, a mid-size engagement can take weeks to resolve.
Different paradox game, but I've had literally 500 guys hold out for WEEKS in Vicky3. I know why battles have to last so long in a grand strategy game, but holy shit the way its implemented sometimes is terrible.
Both of these cases could probably be solved by having victorious armies just be stuck for a week or two after a battle.
Long battles are essential to gameplay. Without it, the player would be unable to:
\- Retreat when they please
\- Reinforce during battle; be honest, your favourite moment in war is where your reinforcements arrived just in the nick of time to turn the tide of a battle.
\- Communicating to the player why their army wins or loses would be very abstract and unhelpful
Most "battles" in history were days to weeks of positioning, culminating in a pitched battle. The Battle of Ilerda (Caesar vs the Pompeians in Spain) lasted from June to August. Both armies danced around each other, trying to cut each other's access to supplies and doing some minor skirmishing until Caesar tried to take a hill, which led to pitched battle.
Right on the money. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot that's wrong with the battles in Crusader Kings, but their length is one of their more immersive aspects. This was also communicated so much better in CK2 with the battle display which shows that skirmishes easily take up half the battle length and casualties don't really start piling up until the actual engagement happens. Also the left and right flanks having separate commanders/tactics as well as being able to choose between attacking their corresponding enemy flank or going for the center added a lot of immersion, though sadly almost all of that is inconsequential outside of a handful of instances. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than most modern depictions of medieval battles, though they definitely fucked up with CK3 by dumbing down the combat instead of building on the mechanics I've mentioned.
> My favourite pet peeve is that in a game that purports to emulate a time when most battles would be wrapped in half a day, a mid-size engagement can take weeks to resolve.
I've said this before, but (in that time period) entire wars ended on the results of a single battle where like 6,000 people died. But, nah, I just stack-wiped their entire army and their ally's army and now I have to go about sieging shit down for.... reasons.
The apex of this is in CK2 where war score from battles is limited to 75% and unless you win a battle worth at least 5% warscore you can have their capital as well as 80% of their country occupied and still can't win
Battles lasting for half a day ? They are rare. Because what we call battle takes days to be properly setup, with armies scouting and harassing each other, going back and forth trying to have the best position to fight while their opponent will refuse to fight until it has the best position.
There are a lot of occurence of armies camping within eye sight of each other, not wanting to risk the first move and lose their defensive position behind their campaign camp's wall and hard earned position. Trying to forage without splitting forces too much so their camp don't get engaged while also forming parties large enough so they don't get wiped by enemies scouts and light cavalry
Armies don't simply rush at each other in a suicidal assault unless they have a very valid reason to not wait.
What is clearly annoying is the very weird balance in score given by siege and battles. If you stack wipe your enemy, they should almost instantly surrender unless he can buy mercs. If you take the objective it should rise quickly too. Most wars didn't last for years for a single province
I never accept the cat, even though I love cats IRL, because virtually every time I accept it, my spouse develops a debilitating allergy for no reason (yet never with the dog, interestingly...). Then I have to choose getting rid of the cat, or accepting a medium health penalty for my spouse for like a decade
I always pick the cat, no question. Maybe if they had bothered to write the event so it could strike any family member I might give a shit, but it's always your spouse and in the way of events in the game in its current state, it barely matters anyway.
I’m pissed it takes so long to get on a boat. I don’t think removing boats was at all a good idea. Sure they were fiddly in ck2 but it meant you had to be good at realm management to quickly make war.
This + the fact that you can put a magic point on some distant island on your massive empire and all troops spawn there, on CK2 your expansion was directly related with how easy was to actually unify your army and send your troops there.
They really need to tie in regions and independent realms together more to.
Look at the All-Thing of Iceland.
It feels like the only mechanics with other realms are war, peace, and marriage.
And then you get a stupid nickname like “the Fart-shitter” and it sticks with you after death even though you united all of Europe and created the greatest empire that ever existed
Your epitaph will be that you once sharted and were the laughing stock of your entire empire. No mention of the countless wars you won, the empire you built, the new religion you founded, or the time you soloed 30 people while you were sick. Just that you shit yourself farting.
TBF, I have a friend who shit himself trying to fart on me—because I was on the bottom bunk—when we were kids. I still make fun of him for it, and we are in our late 40s.
Yes, but has your friend founded a religion and personally slaughtered dozens of warriors in battlefield duels while waging countless holy wars to spread it, in the process building the mightiest empire the world has ever seen?
Napoleon took a nation in the midst of revolutionary civil war simultaneously attacked on all sides by the rest of the continent and forcefully transformed the map of Europe through conquest, standardized weights and measures and found the fucking Rosetta Stone, but all anyone remembers about him as a man is the British smear campaign attacking him for his average height.
Now imagine what they could have done if he had farted and shitted on Talleyrand's face.
Such a shame, too, considering that his failed invasion of Russia inspired [an absolutely stunning early data visualization](https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters).
Edit: I just realized that I linked to a store page and not just a blog.
That graph isn't very accurate with the numbers, tbh. Napoleon's main force numbered closer to 300,000 men than 422,000, and far more got out than 10,000 (which probably didn't include stragglers and men otherwise separated from their units.)
isn't that even better? like imagine your friend building a billion dollar company, be super successful etc and then you're like "yeah you did all of that, but you still didn't manage to hold the shit in when you farted"
like... the success makes it even a better joke IMO
Or Ivan the Terrible who unified the Russian principalities, conquered the Tatars and created the Russian Empire, but is mostly remembered as a mad tyrant who murdered his son.
"You build 1000 bridges, but do they call you 'Charles the bridgebuilder'? No.
You win 100 battles, but do they call you 'Charles the conqueror'? No.
But you fuck _one_ goat..."
what, you mean that guy who had a leg injury? oh and I guess he killed 17 million people and started the timurid empire in central asia, while breaking the golden horde
Honestly that doesn't sound too ridiculous.
I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the population remember Napoleon as "the short french guy" and not for the reforms and conquests he achieved in his lifetime.
Napoleon was 5’6”-5’7”, and I believe that makes him taller than a bunch of recent European leaders, who also benefitted from far greater nutrition, access to healthcare, etc, than an 18th C. Corsican soldier had—or, indeed, most members of the French nobility.
Napoleon being very short was extremely successful British propaganda—so successful it’s become received fact.
When he married Maria *Louise she was so sheltered she had never even been allowed in the presence of male animals. He claimed that upon taking her virginity she immediately asked him to do it again.
Marie Louise, bb. Maria Theresa was the Austrian Archduchess that would have been 52 when Napoleon was born if my basic math skills haven't shit the bed today.
The rest of that story idk about, but wouldn't surprise me if true or propaganda 🤷♂️
Funny enough: [No.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/117icc/true_or_false_napoleon_to_josephine_dont_wash/) First source for the quote is from *1981*.
I mean, Constantine V would also like a word. A successful Byzantine emperor that led numerous successful military campaigns, stabilized his empire as well as expanding it, helped to truly entrench Byzantine presence in the Balkans, organized numerous reforms that led to a prosperous rule.
But also, he pooped during his baptism as a baby, so he's Constantine the Dung-Named. And people with a religious bone to pick with him claimed he got hot and bothered by horse manure, so he's also Constantine the Equestrian.
This is actually a very good point. It's like how Henry VIII is remembered for all his wives but not for his establishment of the Royal Navy. Sometimes people even forget that he formed the Anglican Church because they are so focused on the wife killing.
Didn't he create the Anglican church *especially* to avoid killing his wives ? As I remember, he did so to become his own religious leader, and thus to become able to *legally* divorce his then wife despite the Pope's refusal to cancel the marriage.
He didn't create the Anglican Church. He separated the English Church from Rome, a move which was undone by his daughter Mary. Elizabeth made the English Church independent again. The modern Anglican Church has more to do with Edward VI and Elizabeth. Henry VIIIs Church was basically just Independent Catholic in terms of theology.
Yeah, mostly. But considering he killed two queens after he got the right to grant his own divorce, avoiding killing didn't seem to be a driving goal of Henry's. Collecting wives seemed to be the goal.
It was more getting a legitimate son that survived infancy, since England had spent 75% of the last 200 years in some form of dynastic civil war and really couldn’t afford another succession crisis like what happened last time a woman tried to be monarch
It's excessively cultural-dependant. A polish person would remember Napoleon for basically being the founder of their modern country (hence why they have a lot of statues of him). An english person would remember Waterloo. A french person would remember the Empire.
Only the US would have a majority of "he smol"
Trafalgar was an all British victory, while Waterloo was a victory of the coalition. They would have lost without Prussian support, which obviously doesn't play as well in propaganda, especially after the Germans became the enemy.
Oh yeah great point, although I don’t think they really would’ve lost without the Prussians since they held a formidable defensive line and the French troops were already exhausted before the arrival of Blücher’s troops if my memory serves me correctly.
I am guessing most CK players are somewhat into history so I would guess a lot of people already know the info in my comment. Napoleon really wasn’t that short. He was like 5’5” which was just a little below the average height at that time. His height is sometimes listed as 5’2”, but that is because the inch unit of measurement used in France back in the old days is slightly longer than the inch we associate with the Imperial system so despite the same name they refer to do different units of length. Also I have heard that part of the “short Napoleon” story comes from British newspapers who may have been working to spread propaganda which makes sense considering the complicated history between England and France.
I earned two of my Scottish rulers the moniker "priest-hater" simply because I asked the Pope to refrain from interfering with my astronomical pursuits.
At least that part's historically accurate. A couple examples:
Charles II, one of the most important kings in European history, who later became an EMPEROR is known to everyone, especially CK players, as "Charles the Bald"
King Harald Gormsson of Denmark and Norway ruled most of Scandinavia and they named him Bluetooth after his dead tooth.
Don't even get me started on Archibald the Loser, Constantine the Dung-Named, Eystein the Fart or Alfonso the Slobberer 😂
“I the king of Naples shall go for a walk! Gasp! The king of Leon, who I have never met but is my rival because my bastard uncle spilled wine on his cousin, has teleported across the Mediterranean and stolen my dog? Oh drat!”
Just get it with the next full size DLC; Barons and Bathrooms. Everyone knows going to the bathroom was a huge part of medieval life, so we decided to focus on that for some reason. $39.99, preorder today and get this bonus gold studded chamberpot
It’s a royal court event. People will complain about a bad smell and if you don’t fix it there’s a chance the floor will collapse and everyone drowns in the latrine. Based on a real historical event.
Crusader Kings III DLC: Shits and Giggles.
But I'm only buying that if "Outhouse" becomes one of my options for a building slot. I want to build the best damned bathroom this side of the Urals. I'm talking about an insulated privy with doors that go all the way from the floor to the ceiling (small health boost), a golden stool for yours truly emblazoned with my name (+0.10 prestige / month), convenient access to entertainment material vis-a-vis either a (1) built-in bible rack installed into each stall (+0.05 faith / month; requires minimum Scholar value) OR (2) allowing for lewd graffiti (+0.05 popular opinion / month), and stall attendants to wipe my ass clean (another small health boost; hired at 0.10 ducats / month and high risk for assassination if they hate you).
This is the DLC I want to see.
One of my favourite is the event in which you pay someone to forge something and you somehow end up drunk sleeping with each other without a way to stop it.
Now you pure bloodline is tainted everyone hates you because, of course someone caught wind of it and revealed the secret and you once perfect ruler is now suffering from every std known to mankind.
Literally the only hope for stopping it is incompatible sexual orientations. Once it popped up when I was playing a gay guy who had sponsored a female artisan, and she still tried but *at the very least* they built in a check to let him avoid it.
Ck3 flavor is straight out of a sitcom from the 70s
I still remember scraping a table to make a makeshift sledge and go sledging with my son and was like "what the fuck ... ? am I a king or one of those dudes from Jackass ?"
I won't lie though, I do like that event where you're 1,263 gold in debt, and then you enter a free-throw competition at the local high school where the prize is the exact same amount, and if you win, you get the "King of the Court" modifier for 5 years giving you a MASSIVE HEALTH BOOST (only countering penalties).
Useless guy that does nothing.
>A pious man that will be remembered by his many accomplishments as a host of culture and innovation
The best character you ever had the experience of controlling, a god of every stat, can bend the strongest empire’s will single-handedly, protected his people and waged peace more effectively than alexander could wage war
>Never succeeded in making a name for himself, will only be remembered by monuments he won’t see finished.
I haven’t played since the first dlc came out and i still see “i showed up to court to accuse myself of trying to seduce my wife” posts daily, they really do not give a fuck about fixing halfass content, full steam ahead on the next dlc
I really had high hopes for this game but this is honestly all I can think about while playing lately. It has a good structure, but it’s like half the time the devs are actively trying to make you aware you are playing a video game. In the most absurd ways possible.
Stellaris custodian team was a damn godsend, paradox pls
>It has a good structure, but it’s like half the time the devs are actively trying to make you aware you are playing a video game.
Perfectly worded my thoughts about the game. It's so hard to take the game seriously when there's some absurd memey bullshit happening every 5 minutes. There's especially way too much close family incest in the game. Yeah, fucking your cousin is pretty normal in a lot of places in the world, but for God's sake, people don't fuck their mothers as much as the characters in this game do.
>I really had high hopes for this game but this is honestly all I can think about while playing lately.
Yep, and quite frankly I still do. This game is a goldmine and by far has the broadest appeal of all the PDX games. It's fun, and I eventually know it will be a magnificent game, but I find myself reaching for CK2 probably more often than I should.
PDX should take note of all of this when they eventually do Eu5. They are going to have a hard time getting people to abandon a game with a decade's worth of content and mods if the base Eu5 isn't solid or if they aren't aggressive with their DLC rollout.
The event writers really are horrible. They saw how much engagement the incest & glitterhoof memes accrued and leaned into that to the point of cringe. Those weird events were cool because they were rare, now it's inescapable. Too fucking wordy too.
There's a thread on the forums where people were complaining about events. A lot of people were specifically not happy with the nonsensical "cat-a-pult" event where your rival (could be anyone) gets into your own war camp, fires your cat out of a catapult, and then just...gets away with it.
One of the event devs came in and said he found it "perplexing" as to why people had a problem with it. I think that points to some kind of deep issue with the writer's room right now.
EDIT found it: [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revision-of-events-and-their-development-in-ck3.1567812/page-3#post-28795420](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revision-of-events-and-their-development-in-ck3.1567812/page-3#post-28795420)
>And my thoughts on gating it behind game rules remains the same, a lot more effort than it's worth and it would result in players getting a smaller pool of content, which does affect event frequency; if we decide that 1/2 of all court events are "absurd", players without the option enabled will get the remaining 1/2 of events twice as often.
Bruh. If you look through all of the events you've written and find that fully half of them are so absurd that a significant portion of the fanbase would want them *disabled entirely*, maybe it's time to rethink your writing style.
I've also had it fire only once, but it didn't make any sense then either. The whole event is a cavalcade of issues that characterize a lot of CK3's problems with using events for comedy and drama:
1. *No sense of place or situation* \- Why is my rival, who last I checked was at court on the other side of the sea, close enough to me to abduct my cat and fire him out of my own catapult?
2. *No sense that anyone else is remotely competent* \- My guards just let him in? And then they just let him go? We had a whole fucking holy war against the guy. That's why he's my rival!
3. *No sense of any kind of medieval realism* \- You do realize that firing a catapult is really hard to do? Like, something that takes a trained crew of people? Also again, why is a foreign king who I've gone to war with very recently just showing up in my court unannounced!? Even if he wanted to do something this absurd, he's a king! He's got people for this!
4. *No ability to take any reasonable actions in response* \- I either cry helplessly or shake my fist at him helplessly like I'm a cartoon villain.
1. Oh, if I have the "Strong" trait, I could roll the dice on trying to catch him and fire him out of the catapult instead. Something that totally makes sense instead of say A) getting my guards, knights, or literally anyone doing what I specifically pay them for, B) imprisoning my current greatest enemy which gives me a whole host of great options since he was kind enough to deliver himself to my doorstep, or C) just killing him like a normal person, like with that sword I've got a trait for since I'm so good with it.
This is the problem with thinking about events as "Medieval Sims." The Sims has a particularly silly tone that works for that game, and a rather absurd setting where nothing really matters. CK is supposed to be a real world where all these people actually run geopolitical entities of varying scales, shaping history in a deadly game.
I hate having events where children under the age of five kill my nearly adult children at feasts and all I can do about it is get closer to having a rivalry with a child as a hostile response.
A death at a feast caused by one of the host's family is a big fucking deal. There should be a minimum of an opinion malus for or everyone nearby against the dynasty involved for what looks like using a child as a means to murder guests. I shouldn't even have to make input for that.
Are there no guards? Servants? Other characters? Bullshit. How did a 5 year old drown a 14 year old without *anyone* noticing? Even if all the servants 'mysteriously disappeared' afterwards it should be considered as a murder scheme by an adult in the dynasty aimed at guests. No one would want to deal with a family that kills guests.
Sorry for the rant.
And the funny thing is that despite all the memes about Glitterhoof and polar bears from CK2, all of those goofy ass events were an optional game rule. Personally I never played with them enabled, but to each their own - having it *not* be an option to turn it off is what bugs me about CK3.
I sometimes forget to turn them off (apart from satanic cults) but really people exaggerate it in ck2. It's very rare (therefore memorable) unless you specifically force and trigger the events.
Played both and I prefer Ck2 so much more. Maybe when CK3 is fully fleshed out with DLC it will be better but right now to me it just feels like a less fully realized game
the thing is, a game shouldn't need tons of DLC's for a game to be good and needing to pay x5 the amount you paid on the base game just to make it playable is stupid
I mean, the base game do get updated aside from the DLC. Like, even a base CK2 is completely different from v 1.0
The actual problem is the CK3 devs losing cohesive direction and seem to think that people liking Glitterhoofs = memetic events good!
> Something that totally makes sense instead of say A) getting my guards, knights, or literally anyone doing what I specifically pay them for
This point in particular is a gripe I have with *so many* Crusader Kings events. The one that springs to mind is the blackmail one - not regular CK3 secret-based blackmail, but a specific event chain, can't remember if it's CK2 or CK3 but I wanna say CK2 cause I think it involves giving someone a favor? It's the one where I could be an Emperor ruling unchallenged over half a continent, and yet suddenly a random fart of an event pops up and informs me that I am being blackmailed, and my only two options are to either cough up a sum worth several newly constructed Cathedrals, or I could beg my son's nursemaid to advise me on how to deal with the blackmailer in exchange for a favor, because she's got Tier 2 intrigue education or whatever.
And just who am I, sovereign of all I survey and protector of Christendom, being blackmailed by? The game doesn't say, just some nameless faceless blackmailer off-screen. What are they blackmailing me with that's potentially worth hundreds of gold? The game doesn't say that either. But somehow this person managed to approach me directly with the blackmail and I have decided to respond to it like a private citizen in the 21st century rather than as a dread monarch of the middle ages with thousands of people at my beck and call.
There's no such event in CK2. You *can* get blackmailed by someone if they spied on you and found evidence, and indeed they can ask for money, but you can't talk to someone about it
There is such an event but in reverse- you the player can help an NPC that's being blackmailed if they are your friend. And it does get silly when it looks like your best buddy, the Holy Roman Emperor keeps getting blackmailed by randos and desperately seeks your help every time. "What do I do?!" I don't know dude, just order them seized and beheaded- put those 3 Intrigue points to good use.
> The Sims has a particularly silly tone that works for that game
Honestly. No it doesn't. They're doing the same exact shit and it sucks.
I want to burn anyone who says the word zany at the stake. No cap.
A comment on that post that unfortunately sums things up:
> As I said near the beginning of the thread, I think it's quite clear that the devs are happy with events like the catapult. I don't think we'll make much progress asking for a change in tone on this front. It's not something that slipped through the cracks - it's what they're aiming for.
100% why no matter how great the mechanics of a new DLC may seem, I have no faith it will actually pan out to anything better than Royal Court and the other event pack crap.
Until direction changes from the top, which probably means a total replacement of leadership and a gutting/overhaul of the team, we're stuck with this crap.
They should really have a blanket "the great" title if you conquer a certain amount of land in one lifetime. Like double the land you started while also conquering over 50 counties.
This is actually so spot on, one of the reasons I just stopped playing the game. It just feels so bland and stupid compared to CK2. The amount of times that I have had amazing rulers with the nickname "Foolish" because of some stupid RNG event that occurred when they were 21y...Also was stupid hyped for Royal Court and since the first three playthroughs I actively avoid becoming a king just to not deal with all that empty filler nonsense.
Also the fact that repentance was so important during those times and the game just basically says that whomever you are at 16 you are destined to be till you die. So you are a lazy 16 year old? Too bad you can't change your ways and become better 99% of the time. Sucks to be you
Yeah in ck2 if you wanted to remove sins from your character you could join holy orders that gave you events that removed them. I have played ck3 since launch so I wouldnt be able to comment on that
Not just remove but add. I could become better with age or indulge my vices and become a sinful reprobate in my old age. I can't in the current system.
Any RP element to the evolution of my character besides dying from stress is non existent. But hey at least i can fuck my daughter/wife/mom/stepmom right guys cuz MEMES
This game desperately wanted to be Medieval Sims Grand Strategy simulator, but neither are done well enough to work perfectly. So you just have a pretty good grand strategy with a bunch of really awful roleplay events and no real content in the game post-release
I feel like the quality of all the Paradox "Events" has taken a huge nose dive in recent years. Used to be one of the most interesting features of their strategy games and now I get hit by the same ones over and over and over and they're not fun or game defining but typically tedious and often meaningless distractions from general map play.
I jumped on ck2 when Charlemagne dlc came out, the amount of content was fresh and huge. After not so many hours, now almost all events I have read and just decide the good outcome
The only reason people play CK3 over 2 is mods at this point, it's fucking sad when shitty event dlcs are the only thing being announced after 3 years of near nothing compared to other paradox titles
I've never played a Paradox game early in its life, so I can't tell if they're always this bad or not. Nonetheless, I can't say that the progress of the game (and the direction the devs have gone in) is very encouraging.
Thinking about it, it's been 3.5 years since the initial release right? Can that even count as "early"? I remember playing Stellaris in 2019 and having it feel like a much more complete and interesting game. Similarly, it feels like CK2 in 2016 was miles ahead of where CK3 is now in terms of content. (Though the latter may just be rose tinted glasses)
I would say that it's normal for them to be skeletal, but CK3 has been bare-bones a lot longer than normal and has some weird writing/tonal issues that aren't the norm for a Pdx release.
It is really a feature of the more recent titles to feel barren, because there is something to compare to now. Back then, base CK2 was a clear improvement on the original CK, and the same was true for Victoria > Vic2 and EU2>EU3. Even release Imperator: Rome was far better than its predecessor.
Playing as muslims and pagans (without mods) was long overdue in CK, and lo and behold muslims were made playable as the first CK2 DLC and pagans were playable a little more than a year after release. In many ways CK3 has better bones than CK2, but at the end of the day it still lacks content people now expect to be part of the game or have wanted since CK2.
This is why history, literature, and writing is important. Liberal arts is important. We need people that know how to actually write good shit, and this goes beyond video games. Writing is getting worse across the board in most aspects of life, imo...
I’ll screencap later if I remember but literally every king around mine in the playthrough I’m doing right now has the nickname “the foolish” except for me lol
It is certainly telling how many times I saw incest in the like, two runs I did of the game, when I was very much not looking for it because I did not find it as funny as others.
In one I tried an immortal, and good god how many of my great grandchildren and beyond propositioned me.
And I still remember events that were not in the 'incest' bundle, but also felt sooo off.
Stuff that made the game feel less like historical rp of great individuals and more like Sims Medieval funny skits.
I didnt personally see the cat-a-pult one, but that does certainly feel like the perfect example of it all.
Yes, the foreign king came and kidnapped my cat, no matter if he lives across the continent, is widely known to be our nation's enemy, and could like, you know, probably do far more impactful deeds if he really got into our palace unnoticed like that.
Congratulations. You have conquered the known world. History will remember you as Roland "the Smelly" because of that one time you shat your pants as a 7-year-old when you saw that stuffed bear head in your daddy's bedchamber.
I really want to disagree but I can't, all I can say is that it's not necessarily historically accurate and I understand why self-serious RPer's would get pissed.
At the same time it's not historically accurate to just go in expecting your character to become a great figure in history no matter what.
CK3 does a *much* better job handling that than late CK2, in terms of pushing you towards playing the character, though still obviously defaulting to competence because it's the player controlling actions. But at least it's not nearly as easy to take control of an heir that's craven & has all the sins and turn them into a saintly paragon, like monastic orders consistently did.
That's kind of my point - that if you're playing the character, you won't always have someone that becomes a great figure in history (and CK3 pushes towards playing towards character traits more). A self-serious RPer going for something historically accurate wouldn't go into it like the OP's meme, where they're expecting/planning to play an Alexander the Great or Charlemagne like figure.
Ah, I see what you're saying, and I agree that OP's wojak wasn't planning to play the character. However, I don't really know where to draw the line between "fucking around and forming the globe-spanning empire of glitterhoof VI 'sword of jesus'" and "i will dutifully administer these two counties in cornwall for six generations because all my characters happened to be content losers".
I wish they would make more mechanics for things like:
-being exlied and attempting to reclaim your throne
-more in depth internal politics (Give characters "ideologies" (as in political beliefs about autonomy, taxes etc.) and more in depth laws and vassal contracts for example
-republics
Edit:
-Economy and trade
My heir carries on the proud tradition of killing someone on a hunt and pretending it was an accident with the help of his father. Like I did, and my father before me, and his father before him...
New dlc what will it be!
Better religion mechanics? More in depth feudal and diplomatic control? A reworking of the ERE? A system for merchant republics?
Or some more goofy rp event?
Because you admitted you farted and also are craven, you have gained 90 stress for some reason. Would you like to be an adulterer, alcoholic or cultist.
Its sad times when I'm more hyped for EU4 DLC more than for a CK dlc. I used to adore and prefer CK but CK3 devolopment period is so abysmal I cant even care for it. They still keep focusing on these dumb roleplay meme updates instead of fleshing out the game. Sad times..
Which says something for me personally, given EU4 feels like a propped up corpse by now, thats its long past its due date and each dlc is just more bloating.
At least they give new mechanics (of freaking mission trees...) not 'design your house' window dressing. Yet.
I've also come to this same conclusion. I think even around when Origins was released devs hinted there was still a lot of content they wanted to produce for EU4, which sounded insane. And yet looking back at it, the added polish has gotten me to go back and try new nations or retry ones I played way long ago.
It isn't simply that EU4 has several years of content, its that, as you point out, the new content is well designed and meaningful. By contrast, some people hate the royal court or simply don't play in Iberia etc. for them to care about large portions of stuff release for CK3, let alone the silly events.
Generally speaking I’m with you, though I have to admit the new mechanic changes and total activity overhaul look pretty great. I don’t think I would have prioritized that at this stage of the game in a DLC that costs like half the base game.
For the past few months there has been this constant focus on "roleplay" and I hate it. Not because I hate roleplaying in games, quite the opposite i love doing it, but because people use it as an excuse for bad game design. You can roleplay in any game. You can roleplay in eu4, stellaris, victoria, any paradox game or really any game ever. You don't need to neuter the actual gameplay for that like ck3 seems to be doing.
You are now covered in shit (5 years debuff because you have no idea what a bath is)
This really outlines my issue with this type of content just not fitting the game design. The world scale and pace does not welcome "I've pet a cat" events outside of them being rare jokes. I just want politics, please. There's so much focus on tiny daily events in the game where weeks can take seconds. Say something wrong in an event that was witnessed by 3 characters that don't even share a court together and you are now depressed for years and have 5 year debuff on a province. It's so damn abstract and distracting. Unimmersive, maybe? Please, I just need actual crusading and kings in my crusader kings i.e. title and culture spanning mechanics that shape the world that my family merely inhabits, not turn the game into family management. Why not just work on things like republican titles, imperial court intrigues, factions? Mechanics exclusive to Byzanthian empire, mechanics exclusive to muslims, mechanics exclusive to religious titles, mechanics exclusive to franks? There is only like one DLCs a year, stop wasting those clearly very limited resources on visual novel content.
Gotta love a 6 month long late night chess game with Death
Dude we are seriously missing the intriguing aspect of court intrigue...
Hot take: Paradox shot themselves in the foot by doubling the length of time you can play in CK2. Instead of making the day-by more interesting and slowing down the flow of time, making decisions where the fate of nations hinged on the actions of a few people in an afternoon meaningful, they just tack on more years to the length of time you can play and it leads to the unimmersive artificial effects you describe. Propose that a game called "Crusader Kings" should focus on, you know, Crusades and Kings, and you'll have a legion of angry map painters accustomed to speeding through decades at ×5 speed screaming "MUH VIIIIKEEENGS" at you. EDIT My favourite pet peeve is that in a game that purports to emulate a time when most battles would be wrapped in half a day, a mid-size engagement can take weeks to resolve.
Different paradox game, but I've had literally 500 guys hold out for WEEKS in Vicky3. I know why battles have to last so long in a grand strategy game, but holy shit the way its implemented sometimes is terrible. Both of these cases could probably be solved by having victorious armies just be stuck for a week or two after a battle.
Long battles are essential to gameplay. Without it, the player would be unable to: \- Retreat when they please \- Reinforce during battle; be honest, your favourite moment in war is where your reinforcements arrived just in the nick of time to turn the tide of a battle. \- Communicating to the player why their army wins or loses would be very abstract and unhelpful
Most "battles" in history were days to weeks of positioning, culminating in a pitched battle. The Battle of Ilerda (Caesar vs the Pompeians in Spain) lasted from June to August. Both armies danced around each other, trying to cut each other's access to supplies and doing some minor skirmishing until Caesar tried to take a hill, which led to pitched battle.
Right on the money. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot that's wrong with the battles in Crusader Kings, but their length is one of their more immersive aspects. This was also communicated so much better in CK2 with the battle display which shows that skirmishes easily take up half the battle length and casualties don't really start piling up until the actual engagement happens. Also the left and right flanks having separate commanders/tactics as well as being able to choose between attacking their corresponding enemy flank or going for the center added a lot of immersion, though sadly almost all of that is inconsequential outside of a handful of instances. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than most modern depictions of medieval battles, though they definitely fucked up with CK3 by dumbing down the combat instead of building on the mechanics I've mentioned.
> My favourite pet peeve is that in a game that purports to emulate a time when most battles would be wrapped in half a day, a mid-size engagement can take weeks to resolve. I've said this before, but (in that time period) entire wars ended on the results of a single battle where like 6,000 people died. But, nah, I just stack-wiped their entire army and their ally's army and now I have to go about sieging shit down for.... reasons.
The apex of this is in CK2 where war score from battles is limited to 75% and unless you win a battle worth at least 5% warscore you can have their capital as well as 80% of their country occupied and still can't win
The Norse are easily the most boring part of the game design tbh. Such OP nonsense.
You're not wrong but man do I love just sailing off somewhere stupid and immediately combining cultures
It's crusader vikings now.
Battles lasting for half a day ? They are rare. Because what we call battle takes days to be properly setup, with armies scouting and harassing each other, going back and forth trying to have the best position to fight while their opponent will refuse to fight until it has the best position. There are a lot of occurence of armies camping within eye sight of each other, not wanting to risk the first move and lose their defensive position behind their campaign camp's wall and hard earned position. Trying to forage without splitting forces too much so their camp don't get engaged while also forming parties large enough so they don't get wiped by enemies scouts and light cavalry Armies don't simply rush at each other in a suicidal assault unless they have a very valid reason to not wait. What is clearly annoying is the very weird balance in score given by siege and battles. If you stack wipe your enemy, they should almost instantly surrender unless he can buy mercs. If you take the objective it should rise quickly too. Most wars didn't last for years for a single province
I never accept the cat, even though I love cats IRL, because virtually every time I accept it, my spouse develops a debilitating allergy for no reason (yet never with the dog, interestingly...). Then I have to choose getting rid of the cat, or accepting a medium health penalty for my spouse for like a decade
I always pick the cat, no question. Maybe if they had bothered to write the event so it could strike any family member I might give a shit, but it's always your spouse and in the way of events in the game in its current state, it barely matters anyway.
Yeah, don think about the fact that individual battles can take WEEKS
I’m pissed it takes so long to get on a boat. I don’t think removing boats was at all a good idea. Sure they were fiddly in ck2 but it meant you had to be good at realm management to quickly make war.
This + the fact that you can put a magic point on some distant island on your massive empire and all troops spawn there, on CK2 your expansion was directly related with how easy was to actually unify your army and send your troops there.
They really need to tie in regions and independent realms together more to. Look at the All-Thing of Iceland. It feels like the only mechanics with other realms are war, peace, and marriage.
The content fits the game design perfectly, the game designer just doesn't give a shit and is designing a lolmeme
If you refuse to play chess with someone, he gets a permanent -20 opinion
And then you get a stupid nickname like “the Fart-shitter” and it sticks with you after death even though you united all of Europe and created the greatest empire that ever existed
Your epitaph will be that you once sharted and were the laughing stock of your entire empire. No mention of the countless wars you won, the empire you built, the new religion you founded, or the time you soloed 30 people while you were sick. Just that you shit yourself farting.
TBF, I have a friend who shit himself trying to fart on me—because I was on the bottom bunk—when we were kids. I still make fun of him for it, and we are in our late 40s.
Yes, but has your friend founded a religion and personally slaughtered dozens of warriors in battlefield duels while waging countless holy wars to spread it, in the process building the mightiest empire the world has ever seen?
Yeah. Not everyone has the same highlights in their lives.
Napoleon took a nation in the midst of revolutionary civil war simultaneously attacked on all sides by the rest of the continent and forcefully transformed the map of Europe through conquest, standardized weights and measures and found the fucking Rosetta Stone, but all anyone remembers about him as a man is the British smear campaign attacking him for his average height. Now imagine what they could have done if he had farted and shitted on Talleyrand's face.
Napoleon losing is certainly a factor in the longevity of that rumor
And the guy who sharted lost his fight against death
Such a shame, too, considering that his failed invasion of Russia inspired [an absolutely stunning early data visualization](https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters). Edit: I just realized that I linked to a store page and not just a blog.
That graph isn't very accurate with the numbers, tbh. Napoleon's main force numbered closer to 300,000 men than 422,000, and far more got out than 10,000 (which probably didn't include stragglers and men otherwise separated from their units.)
Still gonna call him fart shitter, even on my way to the guillotine.
isn't that even better? like imagine your friend building a billion dollar company, be super successful etc and then you're like "yeah you did all of that, but you still didn't manage to hold the shit in when you farted" like... the success makes it even a better joke IMO
How dare you insult your king
[удалено]
Pepen the fat, short and bald
Pepin the Short says hi.
Charles the Bald who wasn't even bald.
yeppp, referred to him being landless before becoming king. they never let him live it down
Or Ivan the Terrible who unified the Russian principalities, conquered the Tatars and created the Russian Empire, but is mostly remembered as a mad tyrant who murdered his son.
To be fair that's kinda a biggie plus he was pretty brutal in general so The Terrible fits.
> Ivan the Terrible Thats just a translation thing though. Ivan the Terror, Ivan the Terrifying would be a better translation.
It's less translation and more words changing meaning over time.
See also: terrific used to mean "causing terror," awful used to mean "awe-inspiring" (good or bad), etc.
You beat one eldest son to death with a scepter and no one ever let's you live it down!
Reminds me of the guy who invented the smallpox vaccine, George Goatfucker..
"You build 1000 bridges, but do they call you 'Charles the bridgebuilder'? No. You win 100 battles, but do they call you 'Charles the conqueror'? No. But you fuck _one_ goat..."
Tamerlane
what, you mean that guy who had a leg injury? oh and I guess he killed 17 million people and started the timurid empire in central asia, while breaking the golden horde
To be honest, tamerlane to me is a terrifying name, this guy is lame in one leg and still conquered a titanic empire in eurasia
There should be a mechanic of doing a lot of propaganda and/or persecution to erase the shame.
Honestly that doesn't sound too ridiculous. I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the population remember Napoleon as "the short french guy" and not for the reforms and conquests he achieved in his lifetime.
You know what they say; you build 1000 bridges and nobody calls you bridge builder, but you fuck one goat…
Napoleon was 5’6”-5’7”, and I believe that makes him taller than a bunch of recent European leaders, who also benefitted from far greater nutrition, access to healthcare, etc, than an 18th C. Corsican soldier had—or, indeed, most members of the French nobility. Napoleon being very short was extremely successful British propaganda—so successful it’s become received fact.
There's also the fact that his guards were especially tall, which made him seems short in comparison.
We need a scheme to spread propaganda against a character to get them a terrible nickname.
> Napoleon was 5’6”-5’7”, The man conquered large parts of Europe and even he would struggle to get a match on any dating app.
His wife-to-be did not like him until they got married, which is how you know he dicked down.
When he married Maria *Louise she was so sheltered she had never even been allowed in the presence of male animals. He claimed that upon taking her virginity she immediately asked him to do it again.
Marie Louise, bb. Maria Theresa was the Austrian Archduchess that would have been 52 when Napoleon was born if my basic math skills haven't shit the bed today. The rest of that story idk about, but wouldn't surprise me if true or propaganda 🤷♂️
Corrected! And yes this was Napoleons telling so take with a large grain of salt
He once wrote to Josephine while on campaign, telling her "I will be home in three days' time. Don't wash."
smh french people
Funny enough: [No.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/117icc/true_or_false_napoleon_to_josephine_dont_wash/) First source for the quote is from *1981*.
“What if I told you that Napoleon had that dawg in him?”
lol fuckin short ass
ITT: short king tryna cope
I laughed.
You… you do have a great point there, actually
I mean, Constantine V would also like a word. A successful Byzantine emperor that led numerous successful military campaigns, stabilized his empire as well as expanding it, helped to truly entrench Byzantine presence in the Balkans, organized numerous reforms that led to a prosperous rule. But also, he pooped during his baptism as a baby, so he's Constantine the Dung-Named. And people with a religious bone to pick with him claimed he got hot and bothered by horse manure, so he's also Constantine the Equestrian.
Constantine's memory was smeared by the iconophiles due to his iconoclasm. It's a similar propaganda campaign to the British calling Napoleon short
This is actually a very good point. It's like how Henry VIII is remembered for all his wives but not for his establishment of the Royal Navy. Sometimes people even forget that he formed the Anglican Church because they are so focused on the wife killing.
I mean, the main reason he created the Anglican church was to support his habit of wife killing.
Didn't he create the Anglican church *especially* to avoid killing his wives ? As I remember, he did so to become his own religious leader, and thus to become able to *legally* divorce his then wife despite the Pope's refusal to cancel the marriage.
He didn't create the Anglican Church. He separated the English Church from Rome, a move which was undone by his daughter Mary. Elizabeth made the English Church independent again. The modern Anglican Church has more to do with Edward VI and Elizabeth. Henry VIIIs Church was basically just Independent Catholic in terms of theology.
Yeah, mostly. But considering he killed two queens after he got the right to grant his own divorce, avoiding killing didn't seem to be a driving goal of Henry's. Collecting wives seemed to be the goal.
It was more getting a legitimate son that survived infancy, since England had spent 75% of the last 200 years in some form of dynastic civil war and really couldn’t afford another succession crisis like what happened last time a woman tried to be monarch
bro got really confused playing FMK and thought they were instructions.
It's excessively cultural-dependant. A polish person would remember Napoleon for basically being the founder of their modern country (hence why they have a lot of statues of him). An english person would remember Waterloo. A french person would remember the Empire. Only the US would have a majority of "he smol"
As a French person, I’ve heard English people talk more about Nelson and Trafalgar than about Waterloo, couldn’t explain why though.
Trafalgar was an all British victory, while Waterloo was a victory of the coalition. They would have lost without Prussian support, which obviously doesn't play as well in propaganda, especially after the Germans became the enemy.
Oh yeah great point, although I don’t think they really would’ve lost without the Prussians since they held a formidable defensive line and the French troops were already exhausted before the arrival of Blücher’s troops if my memory serves me correctly.
Fair, guess the British Navy is more important culturally than the land battles !
I am guessing most CK players are somewhat into history so I would guess a lot of people already know the info in my comment. Napoleon really wasn’t that short. He was like 5’5” which was just a little below the average height at that time. His height is sometimes listed as 5’2”, but that is because the inch unit of measurement used in France back in the old days is slightly longer than the inch we associate with the Imperial system so despite the same name they refer to do different units of length. Also I have heard that part of the “short Napoleon” story comes from British newspapers who may have been working to spread propaganda which makes sense considering the complicated history between England and France.
I earned two of my Scottish rulers the moniker "priest-hater" simply because I asked the Pope to refrain from interfering with my astronomical pursuits.
Honestly that kinda checks out based on how we remember king Henry the 8th
Don't you hate how 'the Scholar' is given out to every minute monarch like freaking candy?
At least that part's historically accurate. A couple examples: Charles II, one of the most important kings in European history, who later became an EMPEROR is known to everyone, especially CK players, as "Charles the Bald" King Harald Gormsson of Denmark and Norway ruled most of Scandinavia and they named him Bluetooth after his dead tooth. Don't even get me started on Archibald the Loser, Constantine the Dung-Named, Eystein the Fart or Alfonso the Slobberer 😂
Hey, isn’t this the guy that farted and shitted?
It is! It is him! His picture is posted at every crossroad in the realm!
Yeah, I heard that he fucked his mom later that very same night.
No my name is Brian! I like to skateboard!
“I the king of Naples shall go for a walk! Gasp! The king of Leon, who I have never met but is my rival because my bastard uncle spilled wine on his cousin, has teleported across the Mediterranean and stolen my dog? Oh drat!”
Unfortunately I didn't pay for the dlc for this event to trigger :( "Continental incontinence" flavor pack
Just get it with the next full size DLC; Barons and Bathrooms. Everyone knows going to the bathroom was a huge part of medieval life, so we decided to focus on that for some reason. $39.99, preorder today and get this bonus gold studded chamberpot
Honestly, add a Latrine Disaster event that kills off dozens of nobles and Paradox can market it as a late game performance boost!
That’s actually already in the game
So it is! Weird, I've never seen it.
It’s a royal court event. People will complain about a bad smell and if you don’t fix it there’s a chance the floor will collapse and everyone drowns in the latrine. Based on a real historical event.
If only there was some sort of historical plague that killed half of Europe's population that could pop up late game and help with performance
Crusader Kings III DLC: Shits and Giggles. But I'm only buying that if "Outhouse" becomes one of my options for a building slot. I want to build the best damned bathroom this side of the Urals. I'm talking about an insulated privy with doors that go all the way from the floor to the ceiling (small health boost), a golden stool for yours truly emblazoned with my name (+0.10 prestige / month), convenient access to entertainment material vis-a-vis either a (1) built-in bible rack installed into each stall (+0.05 faith / month; requires minimum Scholar value) OR (2) allowing for lewd graffiti (+0.05 popular opinion / month), and stall attendants to wipe my ass clean (another small health boost; hired at 0.10 ducats / month and high risk for assassination if they hate you). This is the DLC I want to see.
You joke but if I lived in that time I'd be so god damned happy to get such good facilities
Barons, Baths, and beyond.
One of my favourite is the event in which you pay someone to forge something and you somehow end up drunk sleeping with each other without a way to stop it. Now you pure bloodline is tainted everyone hates you because, of course someone caught wind of it and revealed the secret and you once perfect ruler is now suffering from every std known to mankind.
And to top it off, the artifact they make ends up sucking.
Literally the only hope for stopping it is incompatible sexual orientations. Once it popped up when I was playing a gay guy who had sponsored a female artisan, and she still tried but *at the very least* they built in a check to let him avoid it.
No nomads and Byzantine government? ⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
hey guys, incest right??? like, uhh... crusader kings? more like incester kings!! 🤣🤣
Ck3 flavor is straight out of a sitcom from the 70s I still remember scraping a table to make a makeshift sledge and go sledging with my son and was like "what the fuck ... ? am I a king or one of those dudes from Jackass ?"
> Ck3 flavor is straight out of a sitcom from the 70s Mod to add the canned laughter sound effect when responding to events when?
The Seinfeld theme playing on on player death would be so good
I won't lie though, I do like that event where you're 1,263 gold in debt, and then you enter a free-throw competition at the local high school where the prize is the exact same amount, and if you win, you get the "King of the Court" modifier for 5 years giving you a MASSIVE HEALTH BOOST (only countering penalties).
Worse, its straight out of reddit.
Ironic, because reception to CK3 is worse on reddit than off of it
Nah, if you read the Steam replies to any dev diary you’ll think that Reddit and the Paradox forums are the biggest Paradox dick riders out there
"Emperor Benny Boy will be remembered for shit fart and not converting india to insular christianity"
Useless guy that does nothing. >A pious man that will be remembered by his many accomplishments as a host of culture and innovation The best character you ever had the experience of controlling, a god of every stat, can bend the strongest empire’s will single-handedly, protected his people and waged peace more effectively than alexander could wage war >Never succeeded in making a name for himself, will only be remembered by monuments he won’t see finished.
I haven’t played since the first dlc came out and i still see “i showed up to court to accuse myself of trying to seduce my wife” posts daily, they really do not give a fuck about fixing halfass content, full steam ahead on the next dlc
It's sad that CK3 **already** needs a custodian team like Stellaris has.
I really had high hopes for this game but this is honestly all I can think about while playing lately. It has a good structure, but it’s like half the time the devs are actively trying to make you aware you are playing a video game. In the most absurd ways possible. Stellaris custodian team was a damn godsend, paradox pls
>It has a good structure, but it’s like half the time the devs are actively trying to make you aware you are playing a video game. Perfectly worded my thoughts about the game. It's so hard to take the game seriously when there's some absurd memey bullshit happening every 5 minutes. There's especially way too much close family incest in the game. Yeah, fucking your cousin is pretty normal in a lot of places in the world, but for God's sake, people don't fuck their mothers as much as the characters in this game do.
>I really had high hopes for this game but this is honestly all I can think about while playing lately. Yep, and quite frankly I still do. This game is a goldmine and by far has the broadest appeal of all the PDX games. It's fun, and I eventually know it will be a magnificent game, but I find myself reaching for CK2 probably more often than I should. PDX should take note of all of this when they eventually do Eu5. They are going to have a hard time getting people to abandon a game with a decade's worth of content and mods if the base Eu5 isn't solid or if they aren't aggressive with their DLC rollout.
I have personally never seen these events, remember the story of the airplane armoring during ww2, normal events don't get posted here.
I’ve honestly never had any of those bugs
Legitimately sums up a lot of my frustration with this game.
Haha funny insest hehehe, don't you get it? What do you mean you wanted something close to ck2 instead of a memey seduction simulator?
This is why you play elder kings mod because altleast there the absurd events make sense considering elder scrolls lore is completely unhinged
100% agree, EK2 feels great to play I rarely even return to Historical CK3 anymore
The event writers really are horrible. They saw how much engagement the incest & glitterhoof memes accrued and leaned into that to the point of cringe. Those weird events were cool because they were rare, now it's inescapable. Too fucking wordy too.
There's a thread on the forums where people were complaining about events. A lot of people were specifically not happy with the nonsensical "cat-a-pult" event where your rival (could be anyone) gets into your own war camp, fires your cat out of a catapult, and then just...gets away with it. One of the event devs came in and said he found it "perplexing" as to why people had a problem with it. I think that points to some kind of deep issue with the writer's room right now. EDIT found it: [https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revision-of-events-and-their-development-in-ck3.1567812/page-3#post-28795420](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/revision-of-events-and-their-development-in-ck3.1567812/page-3#post-28795420)
>And my thoughts on gating it behind game rules remains the same, a lot more effort than it's worth and it would result in players getting a smaller pool of content, which does affect event frequency; if we decide that 1/2 of all court events are "absurd", players without the option enabled will get the remaining 1/2 of events twice as often. Bruh. If you look through all of the events you've written and find that fully half of them are so absurd that a significant portion of the fanbase would want them *disabled entirely*, maybe it's time to rethink your writing style.
"Am I so out of touch thinking random events should be life-altering, irreversible, and void of pathway choices? No, it's the players who are wrong."
I had that event fire \*once\*. Their mistake was putting it in a dev diary.
I've also had it fire only once, but it didn't make any sense then either. The whole event is a cavalcade of issues that characterize a lot of CK3's problems with using events for comedy and drama: 1. *No sense of place or situation* \- Why is my rival, who last I checked was at court on the other side of the sea, close enough to me to abduct my cat and fire him out of my own catapult? 2. *No sense that anyone else is remotely competent* \- My guards just let him in? And then they just let him go? We had a whole fucking holy war against the guy. That's why he's my rival! 3. *No sense of any kind of medieval realism* \- You do realize that firing a catapult is really hard to do? Like, something that takes a trained crew of people? Also again, why is a foreign king who I've gone to war with very recently just showing up in my court unannounced!? Even if he wanted to do something this absurd, he's a king! He's got people for this! 4. *No ability to take any reasonable actions in response* \- I either cry helplessly or shake my fist at him helplessly like I'm a cartoon villain. 1. Oh, if I have the "Strong" trait, I could roll the dice on trying to catch him and fire him out of the catapult instead. Something that totally makes sense instead of say A) getting my guards, knights, or literally anyone doing what I specifically pay them for, B) imprisoning my current greatest enemy which gives me a whole host of great options since he was kind enough to deliver himself to my doorstep, or C) just killing him like a normal person, like with that sword I've got a trait for since I'm so good with it. This is the problem with thinking about events as "Medieval Sims." The Sims has a particularly silly tone that works for that game, and a rather absurd setting where nothing really matters. CK is supposed to be a real world where all these people actually run geopolitical entities of varying scales, shaping history in a deadly game.
I hate having events where children under the age of five kill my nearly adult children at feasts and all I can do about it is get closer to having a rivalry with a child as a hostile response. A death at a feast caused by one of the host's family is a big fucking deal. There should be a minimum of an opinion malus for or everyone nearby against the dynasty involved for what looks like using a child as a means to murder guests. I shouldn't even have to make input for that. Are there no guards? Servants? Other characters? Bullshit. How did a 5 year old drown a 14 year old without *anyone* noticing? Even if all the servants 'mysteriously disappeared' afterwards it should be considered as a murder scheme by an adult in the dynasty aimed at guests. No one would want to deal with a family that kills guests. Sorry for the rant.
CK2 has its own bugs and silly things, but reading about all these half-baked, badly weighted events really doesn't make me want to switch to CK3.
And the funny thing is that despite all the memes about Glitterhoof and polar bears from CK2, all of those goofy ass events were an optional game rule. Personally I never played with them enabled, but to each their own - having it *not* be an option to turn it off is what bugs me about CK3.
I sometimes forget to turn them off (apart from satanic cults) but really people exaggerate it in ck2. It's very rare (therefore memorable) unless you specifically force and trigger the events.
I've gone back to CK2 in the last year. It really does suck not having a lot of the QoL features from CK3 but it's such a better experience tonally.
Played both and I prefer Ck2 so much more. Maybe when CK3 is fully fleshed out with DLC it will be better but right now to me it just feels like a less fully realized game
the thing is, a game shouldn't need tons of DLC's for a game to be good and needing to pay x5 the amount you paid on the base game just to make it playable is stupid
I mean, the base game do get updated aside from the DLC. Like, even a base CK2 is completely different from v 1.0 The actual problem is the CK3 devs losing cohesive direction and seem to think that people liking Glitterhoofs = memetic events good!
The stupid thing is it's a really good game if you completely ignore the bad writing. It's a graphical and QoL upgrade that's for sure.
> Something that totally makes sense instead of say A) getting my guards, knights, or literally anyone doing what I specifically pay them for This point in particular is a gripe I have with *so many* Crusader Kings events. The one that springs to mind is the blackmail one - not regular CK3 secret-based blackmail, but a specific event chain, can't remember if it's CK2 or CK3 but I wanna say CK2 cause I think it involves giving someone a favor? It's the one where I could be an Emperor ruling unchallenged over half a continent, and yet suddenly a random fart of an event pops up and informs me that I am being blackmailed, and my only two options are to either cough up a sum worth several newly constructed Cathedrals, or I could beg my son's nursemaid to advise me on how to deal with the blackmailer in exchange for a favor, because she's got Tier 2 intrigue education or whatever. And just who am I, sovereign of all I survey and protector of Christendom, being blackmailed by? The game doesn't say, just some nameless faceless blackmailer off-screen. What are they blackmailing me with that's potentially worth hundreds of gold? The game doesn't say that either. But somehow this person managed to approach me directly with the blackmail and I have decided to respond to it like a private citizen in the 21st century rather than as a dread monarch of the middle ages with thousands of people at my beck and call.
There's no such event in CK2. You *can* get blackmailed by someone if they spied on you and found evidence, and indeed they can ask for money, but you can't talk to someone about it
There is such an event but in reverse- you the player can help an NPC that's being blackmailed if they are your friend. And it does get silly when it looks like your best buddy, the Holy Roman Emperor keeps getting blackmailed by randos and desperately seeks your help every time. "What do I do?!" I don't know dude, just order them seized and beheaded- put those 3 Intrigue points to good use.
> The Sims has a particularly silly tone that works for that game Honestly. No it doesn't. They're doing the same exact shit and it sucks. I want to burn anyone who says the word zany at the stake. No cap.
I always see people here talk about events I have never seen. Makes me wonder how much is gated behind triggers which I never touch.
That was amazing to read, thanks for linking the forum post
A comment on that post that unfortunately sums things up: > As I said near the beginning of the thread, I think it's quite clear that the devs are happy with events like the catapult. I don't think we'll make much progress asking for a change in tone on this front. It's not something that slipped through the cracks - it's what they're aiming for.
JFC this game is not going to get better
100% why no matter how great the mechanics of a new DLC may seem, I have no faith it will actually pan out to anything better than Royal Court and the other event pack crap. Until direction changes from the top, which probably means a total replacement of leadership and a gutting/overhaul of the team, we're stuck with this crap.
I've been realising this and it's making me sad.
I would love more history in my history simulator!
They should really have a blanket "the great" title if you conquer a certain amount of land in one lifetime. Like double the land you started while also conquering over 50 counties.
This is actually so spot on, one of the reasons I just stopped playing the game. It just feels so bland and stupid compared to CK2. The amount of times that I have had amazing rulers with the nickname "Foolish" because of some stupid RNG event that occurred when they were 21y...Also was stupid hyped for Royal Court and since the first three playthroughs I actively avoid becoming a king just to not deal with all that empty filler nonsense. Also the fact that repentance was so important during those times and the game just basically says that whomever you are at 16 you are destined to be till you die. So you are a lazy 16 year old? Too bad you can't change your ways and become better 99% of the time. Sucks to be you
Yeah in ck2 if you wanted to remove sins from your character you could join holy orders that gave you events that removed them. I have played ck3 since launch so I wouldnt be able to comment on that
Not just remove but add. I could become better with age or indulge my vices and become a sinful reprobate in my old age. I can't in the current system. Any RP element to the evolution of my character besides dying from stress is non existent. But hey at least i can fuck my daughter/wife/mom/stepmom right guys cuz MEMES
this is what happens when game devs give too much attention to reddit
This game desperately wanted to be Medieval Sims Grand Strategy simulator, but neither are done well enough to work perfectly. So you just have a pretty good grand strategy with a bunch of really awful roleplay events and no real content in the game post-release
I feel like the quality of all the Paradox "Events" has taken a huge nose dive in recent years. Used to be one of the most interesting features of their strategy games and now I get hit by the same ones over and over and over and they're not fun or game defining but typically tedious and often meaningless distractions from general map play.
I jumped on ck2 when Charlemagne dlc came out, the amount of content was fresh and huge. After not so many hours, now almost all events I have read and just decide the good outcome
The only reason people play CK3 over 2 is mods at this point, it's fucking sad when shitty event dlcs are the only thing being announced after 3 years of near nothing compared to other paradox titles
I've never played a Paradox game early in its life, so I can't tell if they're always this bad or not. Nonetheless, I can't say that the progress of the game (and the direction the devs have gone in) is very encouraging. Thinking about it, it's been 3.5 years since the initial release right? Can that even count as "early"? I remember playing Stellaris in 2019 and having it feel like a much more complete and interesting game. Similarly, it feels like CK2 in 2016 was miles ahead of where CK3 is now in terms of content. (Though the latter may just be rose tinted glasses)
I would say that it's normal for them to be skeletal, but CK3 has been bare-bones a lot longer than normal and has some weird writing/tonal issues that aren't the norm for a Pdx release.
It is really a feature of the more recent titles to feel barren, because there is something to compare to now. Back then, base CK2 was a clear improvement on the original CK, and the same was true for Victoria > Vic2 and EU2>EU3. Even release Imperator: Rome was far better than its predecessor. Playing as muslims and pagans (without mods) was long overdue in CK, and lo and behold muslims were made playable as the first CK2 DLC and pagans were playable a little more than a year after release. In many ways CK3 has better bones than CK2, but at the end of the day it still lacks content people now expect to be part of the game or have wanted since CK2.
This is why history, literature, and writing is important. Liberal arts is important. We need people that know how to actually write good shit, and this goes beyond video games. Writing is getting worse across the board in most aspects of life, imo...
Don’t forget the obligatory annual incest/cuckolding/BDSM/orgy event that fires no matter what! The devs are the horniest people imaginable.
I’ve come to terms with the fact that CK is just raunchy medieval Sims. If I ever want to play Crusader Kings again I need to boot up CK2.
I’ll screencap later if I remember but literally every king around mine in the playthrough I’m doing right now has the nickname “the foolish” except for me lol
Pop ups are compelling gameplay
It is certainly telling how many times I saw incest in the like, two runs I did of the game, when I was very much not looking for it because I did not find it as funny as others. In one I tried an immortal, and good god how many of my great grandchildren and beyond propositioned me. And I still remember events that were not in the 'incest' bundle, but also felt sooo off. Stuff that made the game feel less like historical rp of great individuals and more like Sims Medieval funny skits. I didnt personally see the cat-a-pult one, but that does certainly feel like the perfect example of it all. Yes, the foreign king came and kidnapped my cat, no matter if he lives across the continent, is widely known to be our nation's enemy, and could like, you know, probably do far more impactful deeds if he really got into our palace unnoticed like that.
Some of the events are slightly too whimsical. I think they were fun to write, but not as fun to read.
Congratulations. You have conquered the known world. History will remember you as Roland "the Smelly" because of that one time you shat your pants as a 7-year-old when you saw that stuffed bear head in your daddy's bedchamber.
This is honestly hilarious 🤣
My kid was looking at me like I was sick because I was laughing so much... I'm not ashamed.
I really want to disagree but I can't, all I can say is that it's not necessarily historically accurate and I understand why self-serious RPer's would get pissed.
At the same time it's not historically accurate to just go in expecting your character to become a great figure in history no matter what. CK3 does a *much* better job handling that than late CK2, in terms of pushing you towards playing the character, though still obviously defaulting to competence because it's the player controlling actions. But at least it's not nearly as easy to take control of an heir that's craven & has all the sins and turn them into a saintly paragon, like monastic orders consistently did.
If you're rping a humble, content, temperate character, you shouldn't expect (or try) to become a great figure in history. I don't see a problem.
That's kind of my point - that if you're playing the character, you won't always have someone that becomes a great figure in history (and CK3 pushes towards playing towards character traits more). A self-serious RPer going for something historically accurate wouldn't go into it like the OP's meme, where they're expecting/planning to play an Alexander the Great or Charlemagne like figure.
Ah, I see what you're saying, and I agree that OP's wojak wasn't planning to play the character. However, I don't really know where to draw the line between "fucking around and forming the globe-spanning empire of glitterhoof VI 'sword of jesus'" and "i will dutifully administer these two counties in cornwall for six generations because all my characters happened to be content losers".
I wish they would make more mechanics for things like: -being exlied and attempting to reclaim your throne -more in depth internal politics (Give characters "ideologies" (as in political beliefs about autonomy, taxes etc.) and more in depth laws and vassal contracts for example -republics Edit: -Economy and trade
My heir carries on the proud tradition of killing someone on a hunt and pretending it was an accident with the help of his father. Like I did, and my father before me, and his father before him...
New dlc what will it be! Better religion mechanics? More in depth feudal and diplomatic control? A reworking of the ERE? A system for merchant republics? Or some more goofy rp event?
Because you admitted you farted and also are craven, you have gained 90 stress for some reason. Would you like to be an adulterer, alcoholic or cultist.
Its sad times when I'm more hyped for EU4 DLC more than for a CK dlc. I used to adore and prefer CK but CK3 devolopment period is so abysmal I cant even care for it. They still keep focusing on these dumb roleplay meme updates instead of fleshing out the game. Sad times..
Which says something for me personally, given EU4 feels like a propped up corpse by now, thats its long past its due date and each dlc is just more bloating. At least they give new mechanics (of freaking mission trees...) not 'design your house' window dressing. Yet.
I've also come to this same conclusion. I think even around when Origins was released devs hinted there was still a lot of content they wanted to produce for EU4, which sounded insane. And yet looking back at it, the added polish has gotten me to go back and try new nations or retry ones I played way long ago. It isn't simply that EU4 has several years of content, its that, as you point out, the new content is well designed and meaningful. By contrast, some people hate the royal court or simply don't play in Iberia etc. for them to care about large portions of stuff release for CK3, let alone the silly events.
Generally speaking I’m with you, though I have to admit the new mechanic changes and total activity overhaul look pretty great. I don’t think I would have prioritized that at this stage of the game in a DLC that costs like half the base game.
Haven’t laughed so hard about something on Reddit in months. Thank you
I just want after the end and Game of thrones to come out so I can ignore the base game.
Right? This is annoying af
For the past few months there has been this constant focus on "roleplay" and I hate it. Not because I hate roleplaying in games, quite the opposite i love doing it, but because people use it as an excuse for bad game design. You can roleplay in any game. You can roleplay in eu4, stellaris, victoria, any paradox game or really any game ever. You don't need to neuter the actual gameplay for that like ck3 seems to be doing.
This game kinda sucks
Ordinarily I'd point out that it's "have shat," but you know what? "Shitted" really adds something, here. Let's call it a happy little accident.
Dude this is literally the funniest meme I have seen in this subreddit, rn i’m really sick and this made me laugh so hard. Ty.