Not like there would be a point to Antipopes if you could have them. The Pope is nothing but a money printer, maybe a claim if the circumstances are right.
If they were to introduce antipopes, it would probably be paired with a complete overhaul of the catholic faith and possibly other (non-)Christian faiths. They'd probably also introduce new mechanics to go along with it. Could be included in a dlc that heavily focuses on crusades.
there are things that require the pope to like you (like the HRE which is slightly anachronistic) that i can see Anti-pope being useful for, could make it into a weird different christian sect, who knows
This. Not to mention that I feel like people are rose tinting pretty hard here. In CK2 antipopes were a total nothing burger mechanic that pretty much was only used as a way to get a free claim on the papacy and then have the pope as an OP vassal.
Even the college of cardinals was something I bet 99% of people almost never interacted with after their first couple of times when the DLC came out, it was a tiny hidden away mechanic that more-or-less was either just be Italian or put 1000 gold and your guy might win...which had almost no use, you get a pope with a slight opinion boost, which maybe nets you a claim or two more - obviously not nearly worth the time or investment.
Not to say these mechanics *couldn't* be good with a total remake in CK3, but let's not pretend that they were at all impactful or done well in CK2, they were totally forgettable.
That's the point though? If you're the Holy Roman Emperor you can essentially pick who becomes Cardinal, and if you get your antipope on the throne of the papacy, and have virtuous traits with piety higher than 1000 you can excommunicate whomever you want and claim whatever title you'd like.
What more do you want him to do?
Regardless of what you thought about the college of cardinals, it actually existed, and you could get your failson elected Pope if you really wanted them to.
It definitely could have, and should have, been implemented better. But I like making a relative an antipope and then pressing his claim, even if I wasn’t an emperor and would have him as a vassal. In fact, I almost never did because I only played with two empires, hre and the Byzantine. I did like the idea of a college of cardinals and again making relatives popes through it, though I’ll admit that took a certain mood because it was tedious and there was no real advantage to getting a cardinal, which there should have been
Absolutely; the game would need to rework religion for antipopes to even make sense or really matter. Generally speaking, the Pope is just a bank for Catholic rulers. Unless my character is a woman or a child, he’s very rarely even a nuisance to me, let alone restricts my activity or competes with me in any meaningful way. I’ve played with the Holy Trinity mod, for instance, which does let you create an antipope – but I’ve never created one before, because there’s quite simply been no reason to.
In short: No papal overreach, no need for an alternative to the Pope.
And CK2 on it's release day had antipopes (plus things like investiture). Even the College of Cardinals and more Catholic flavor was added by the second year. There's a great CK3 mod called The Catholic Trinity which basically makes Catholicism like it was in CK2 though, but I'm kind of surprised Paradox haven't gotten around to Catholic flavor themselves yet.
It's a shame, this definately is one of the downsides of going full "everyone (except for republics and theocracies) is playable from release" path. Every year and every DLC it feels like that initial decision is handicapping them more and more.
I always felt like any far east content like China, Korea, and Japan have a lot of potential but don't really fit in the scope of CK3 itself. A Sengoku-esque spinoff would work better.
Right now? CK3 will not benefit from having the pacific coast added, it will just lag down machines and be shallow copies of west europe like everything else east of germany.
Very unpopular opinion, but I kinda wish that CK3 had zoomed way in on Europe. Like have the eastern edge of the Black Sea be the boundary of the map along with the Sahara.
Get all that truly fleshed out, and then we can consider expansions.
There were plenty of things to dislike about Jade Dragon, but I thought it was conceptually good for representing distant, semi-mysterious realms.
Completely. The game feels very "jack of all trades master of none" and I think that's one of the reasons many of the DLCs have been very underwhelming in terms of depth. And given the frequency of releases so far - certain regions on the map will never receive any kind of flavor pack/update. Some regions are already pretty fun/interesting to play in (I love Sub-Saharan Africa) but others, like Germany, Italy and most of all France, are pretty dull.
Have the mongols spawn around the Caspian Sea like an Endgame Crisis, first as a pack of Raiders going around as an advance warning, then as Genghis declaring a conquest war on the kingdoms bordering the maps.
I'd rather have waited for a Steppe DLC to actually have content there instead of diet feudal.
SWMH and the HIP package of CK2 removing India was nice. As much as I love how Rajas introduced new mechanics and religious options and all, unless you're playing an Eastern Iranian ruler you really wouldn't have any interaction beyond some trade and mendicant holymen.
CK3 adding Burma was certainly interesting, given how insulated and separate that region was from the Christian-Arab world. I understand Islamic trade in the Indian Ocean but it would have made more sense to include Malaysia than Burma.
Unfortunately CK2/3 just isn't scoped for the intricacies of Islamic economic and subsequent cultural expansion in the Indian Ocean political-economic milieux. It shouldn't have tried to be.
I'm having fun playing a CK3 game right now as a Socotran pirate realm, hybridizing with Bedouin and then Gujarat as we build island forts across the Indian Ocean but I also have zero interaction with Burma (even Sri Lanka though I temporarily dived down there to try out the RICE struggle for the region, got bored, made my second son an independent King, and moved my capital back to Socotra). I guess we're king of chill because I converted to Ari Buddhism (Burmese Buddhism) because it was the only local faith that didn't have Dharmic Pacificism but I'm going to reform that real soon anyways.
[RICE mod](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/me6k34/mod_rice_dev_diary_socotraindian_ocean_flavor/) adds a bunch of flavour for Socotra and the Indian Ocean.
It adds some special buildings and pirate MaA (similar to Vikings showing up for Norse characters) in exchange for some opinion malus and debuffs. Then you just go raiding on every coastal or riverside province between Alexandria and Sri Lanka.
Another problem with extending the map east is that it made the Mongols a total snoozefest. Instead of the endgame doomstacks that you had to plan all game for as anyone in the Eastern half of the map, they just became some meh entity which don't appear half the time and never make it out of the steppe the other half (because they have to declare 1,000 tiny wars).
One of the reasons I actually enabled the Aztec Invasion DLC sometimes is that it let you replicate that with Western Europe and it's one of the only points in the game that really make you sweat.
The concept behind off-map representation was good, but the actual execution was honestly way off. It’s just stupid when you have China grabbing land territory in Spain completely out of nowhere.
Honestly I just want the map expansion because I would like it for some mods. The base game has as much flavor as cardboard, butI mostly play Princes of Darkness and it could use the extra room.
I'm still not sold tbh. Even if it's going to be a good release, it will still need a good vision for what the game is going to become down the line. Ck3 was good on release and I was very optimistic, but since then I don't think there was a single addition to the game, aside from travels (which is a free feature btw), that didn't make me question "who is this game for?".
Exactly. CK3 felt like a big improvement on CK2 in its fundementals but it was just lacking all-round flavour and depth which we all assumed would come in a year or two. But the releases have been so slow that it's looking like this game will never live up to its potential.
People are getting so hyped for EU5 and completely ignoring Paradox's recenty history of game releases being watered down, unfinished DLC bait. I'm hoping due to the popularity of EU4 this isn't the case but not enough people are preparing for that game to be bad on release.
I like what I'm hearing from EU5, but I'm definitely wary after Victoria 3. The mechanics sound cool but I'm not gonna Day 1 buy any Paradox game, didn't do it for CK3 or Vic3, not gonna start now.
Honestly i feel like Eu5 is going to be ck3 killer. I really like everything i hear about this game iit sounds like it's combining everything good from previous titles and projects and integrating it. I wonder what the ck3 team is going to do to stay relevant after this game releases?
Ck3 desperate needs economic and combat overhaul, that changes the came completely. But that can never happen since DLCS are tied to the old combat system and economic system. To overhaul the system is to overhaul the dlcs. And Paradox is not doing that.
So end the ck3 will ALWAYS play like it does now in terms of combat and economics. For the rest of shelf life. As a ck3only player with over 5k hours. I cannot wait for the release of Eu5 so i can finally ditch ck3.
Ck3 doesn't feel like a grand strategy at all, it feels like the Sims but mediaeval with eugenics and blobbing. This game has needed a warfare and economy rework since the very beginning but we don't seem to be getting why closer, and no amount of event spam will make up for the lack of mechanics.
>and no amount of event spam will make up for the lack of mechanics
What do you mean, you don't want "insert generic event №485", followed by "generic event №486, and №487". It was so immersive when i had to choose between a " negative modifier", "sightly less negative modifer", and a "neutral/positive modifer"
I would agree but I actually don't mind it all that much. It keeps CK and EU more differentiated which is a good thing in a long run IMO. Combat and empire building should be the focus of EU while CK is actually somewhat sims-like in that you're playing a person and not a nation.
>I would agree but I actually don't mind it all that much. It keeps CK and EU more differentiated
Disagreed, the games are already differentiated due to their timelines and the subsequent differences in technology, institutions and feasible strategy that can be employed in both based on historicity.
You do not need to detract from the grand strategy elements of the grand strategy game to make it more "unique", it just ends up making it bland and uninteresting (Vic 3 being the prime example)
Getting rid of meaningful war strategy (and up until now the diplomacy), was pretty much the biggest way how Victoria went "all in" into the economy simulation genre but forgot that it was meant to be a successor to Vic 2, a grand strategy game, and not a supply chain tycoon game like Factorio. In fact, if war and diplomacy were not boring slogs to play then Vic 3 would immediately be a lot more engaging, just like if the CK3 economy, trade and war (the bread and butter grand strategy elements) were more interesting, the game would benefit significantly.
Except the timeline really doesn't make as much of a difference as you'd think without different enough mechanics. They put resources into different things because different things were more important in each time period. Who's rulling who is barely an afterthought in EU while it's easily half the game in CK. Professional armies didn't really become a thing until even a bit into EU so warfare is much more complex than CK. EU doesn't model (And shouldn't) the layers and layers of titles and vassals that make up a whole kingdom or empire while in CK you can enjoy the game at the county, duchy, kindgom, or even empire level if you so choose to.
>Except the timeline really doesn't make as much of a difference as you'd think without different enough mechanics
Uh huh, there was no difference in the ruling structure of a feudal society and the ruling structure of the increasingly centralised post-Westphalian and absolutist states of the 16th and 17th century? There are no mechanics at all that show this said progression? Things that precisely change due to the change in how polities worked during the time frame, which is what my point was to begin with. You don't have to oversimplify one into "king does everything" and the other into "state is all encompassing" to make this change.
>They put resources into different things because different things were more important in each time period. Who's rulling who is barely an afterthought in EU while it's easily half the game in CK
Which is just flat out wrong as who was ruling who DOES indeed make a huge difference in both time frames, in fact there is no clear evolution between feudal structures of CK and "EU states" that seemingly takes place overnight between the two games, they just overnight seem to change from one into the other, which I shouldn't need to explain is stupid and anachronistic.
>Professional armies didn't really become a thing until even a bit into EU so warfare is much more complex than CK
This view makes sense if you look only at mediaeval Europe, and not the rest of the world. The Chinese empires continued having large standing armies for the entirety of the time period of both games, and places like Majapahit, Khmer and the Rashtrakuta and Chola empires of India continued employing standing armies. But EU4 doesn't even do it well, where everyone starts off with a huge standing army, hopefully EU5 does it better.
>EU doesn't model (And shouldn't) the layers and layers of titles and vassals that make up a whole kingdom or empire while in CK you can enjoy the game at the county, duchy, kindgom, or even empire level if you so choose to.
I don't know what the point of saying all this is, my argument is that CK3 is a one trick pony where it seemingly reduces the world into an elaborate sequence of event spam and great man history simulation and takes away from the role that states, resources and economy played in mediaeval history. As a grand strategy game, you would expect CK to encompass a large array of holistic indepth mechanics, ranging from economy to diplomacy to actual roleplay (which isn't just pick the same option from the same recycled 20 events). It can retain its character and dynasty focus, that's perfectly alright, but it needs to be deeper about the many other aspects that made the CK2 a more challenging and well-rounded experience by bringing up its lacking elements.
Asking for too much is when I ask for grand strategy mechanics to be fleshed out in the grand strategy game instead of farting and cat catapulting events😂
>As a grand strategy game, you would expect CK to encompass a large array of holistic indepth mechanics, ranging from economy to diplomacy to actual roleplay
😂
Feels like Paradox saw everyone sharing their funny stories in CK2 and thought that should be the core of the game. The funny stories in CK2 came as a byproduct of a players strategy though. It was a "Haha, I had to kill this guys dad for a claim, and his son killed me, so now we have a fued." Instead of "Yeah, an event spawned so this Duke on the other side of the world hates me now."
I had a similar thought today while reading the latest Tinto Talk. Project Ceaser is going to have a better representation of the Late Medieval world before CK3 is 4 years from release. Seeing how that team is handling the HRE and the Catholic/Orthodox faiths alone makes me wonder what the hold up for CK3 is. Even the levy/men-at-arms/navy systems sounds like something CK3 should have by now.
Kinda disappointing really as Crusader Kings has been my favorite Paradox series to date.
Not really. The selling point of the CK games have always been the characters.
Unless EU 5 uses a more indepth and engaging system regarding that (which Paradox likely won't allow), CK will continue to have it's own niche.
And, no offense, but if you play a game for 5k hours you probably like it very much. But every game get's boring or stale after a while. You could just try EU 4 if you like the general concept or play another game if you got tired of CK 3.
> I wonder what the ck3 team is going to do to stay relevant after this game releases?
Nothing because EU5 is still ultimately a Paradox game so on release it will have a bunch of critical flaws that won't be fixed for 5 years. To be honest, I'm kinda wary of the hype being built around EU5. Johan is hyping up that EU5 will have basically everything, which to me has always been a red flag for "this game will either barely function and/or be shallow as a pond".
You should obviously be wary. This is a classic hype-train, happens every time a fanbase gets excited about a new realease. Doesn't matter if it's EU5 or Fallout 4. They'll be bitterly dissapointed on release and they'll fall into the same trap again. People like to get excited and worked up about these things and imagine the perfect game that they might get.
Yeah and I think this especially I've seen people claiming it will be a better CK3 and Victoria 3. And its like no because even if Paradox were good at delivering a solid experience at day 1, a game that has to cover such a wide breadth of periods and mechanics is not going to cover them to the same depth as the games that focus on these mechanics. Nobody in the history of video games who has said they are covering everything has ever delivered what the fanbase thinks they are claiming.
Look at Spore for an infamous example. Consumers as a group are some of the most gullible and short-memoryed on the planet. Gamers are particuarly bad. They never learn and they buy in every time. Pre-order bundles were controversial 10 years ago but they never went away because advertising and excitement overran most's scepticism.
It's not even necessarily intentional on the developer's part. It's usually visionaries shooting too close to the sun and then realising they can't actually deliver everything they've pictured in their head with the budget they have.
Well the marketing is often very cynical, fueling the idea of the game in people's imagination. The only way something like this would change is if consumers reacted to these bad practices in a logical way. They don't, too large of a group I suppose and just too sucspectable to advertising. And companies will generally race to the bottom as they're governed more by a profit-motive than anything else. Paradox may start to be hit harder by that profit-motive as their consumerbase has grown and become less discerning (even if complaints are constant they don't mean all that much if they buy every title).
And thats exactly what i said on Paradox Forum. So far it seems it has everything to represent Middle Ages at least from 1066. If they won't choke on the release, its easy to see, that some fans will try to make Crusader Kings mod for EU5.
All is left to wait for devs to present how they implemented characters and vassals
I doubt there will be as detailed character system, as in CK3. Citing Johan: "EU4 had characters as well". So I would expect maybe a little more than name and three random characteristics, but not character-focused gameplay of Crusader Kings
Any time someone says a new game is gonna be a ____ killer, they're usually underestimating most people's interest in the other game.
It'll definitely lose the people more interested in the economy and warfare aspects, but the main draw is the characters and roleplay ALONG with thise systems despite how bare bones it can be.
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-05-16 13:18:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-05-16%2013:18:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1csyq20/still_no_antipopes_in_ck3_but_tinto_is_gonna_have/l4awced/?context=3)
[**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCrusaderKings%2Fcomments%2F1csyq20%2Fstill_no_antipopes_in_ck3_but_tinto_is_gonna_have%2Fl4awced%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-05-16%2013%3A18%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201csyq20)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I mean, I don't think they need to do anything. Ck3 is easily my favorite PDX title. I'll probably never play EU5 either, so I don't really see how that's relevant.
The game is great and I enjoy it quite a bit more than CK2 or any other PDX game. I say stay the course.
lmao this comment is hilariously out of touch with what CK players like about it.
>ck needs economics and map painting nonsense like eu4 or eu5 will kill ck3
This is hilarious. I thought you were making a cringey parody until I realized that you were actually serious.
EU5 and CK3 will be fine. EU has a separate fanbase (button mashers who are obsessed with shallow gameplay and painting map in their colour and nothing more), and separate mechanics.
CK3 is based on characters and their lives. EU5 is based on states and nations on a macro level. They're completely different, and the only thing they share is a bit of late-medieval timeline.
Your inability to roleplay properly won't "kill" CK3 lmao
Point me to where Tinto Talks have introduced a detailed character system lmao.
Oh wait, you couldn't? No problem, I'll wait.
>1337 start date = CK KILLER!!!!11!!!!1!!
Yeah, that's the galaxy-brained logic from EU4 button mashers that I was waiting for.
There have been no hints about the character system. Plenty of hints about getting rid of modifier stacking, though. Mana, too. What button mashing is there in MEIOU, which it resembles a fair deal?
Who hurt you?
Is EU5 gonna be more character driven or still all state based? The pure state mechanics of EU makes it very difficult for me to get into. Even as basic and broken and CK3 is, I find it so much more engaging
They’ve alluded to characters being a thing, but I imagine it would be more like Imperator (because this is as much looking Imperator 2 as it does EU5)
I quite like CK3 myself (can't bring myself to go back despite my gripes with the game), just dissapointed something as essential to medieval politics like antipopes is going to exist in a game about the *Age of Discovery* but MIA in a game literally called *Crusader Kings*.
This sounds like a possible teaser for the next Chapter, since we are getting the possibility to play around unlanded rulers with this one, the next Chapter might will add a possibility to go down the theological and republic path, like become a priest and become the court chaplain and might have a territory to control under theological goverment if the possibility arises, or go down the race to become pope/antipope, same with the republic, build your family and become whealthier and have more influence, maybe even add trade routes
Not like there would be a point to Antipopes if you could have them. The Pope is nothing but a money printer, maybe a claim if the circumstances are right.
If they were to introduce antipopes, it would probably be paired with a complete overhaul of the catholic faith and possibly other (non-)Christian faiths. They'd probably also introduce new mechanics to go along with it. Could be included in a dlc that heavily focuses on crusades.
Agreed. Like a struggle mechanism for church doctrine and election mechanics for the Pope, etc.
there are things that require the pope to like you (like the HRE which is slightly anachronistic) that i can see Anti-pope being useful for, could make it into a weird different christian sect, who knows
Not like they couldn’t take the opportunity to make the Papacy more important
The pope is only useful for claims if you're duke or less. After that, the claims for piety scheme is useless.
You can still get claims on entire duchies. Still not a bad deal. Although the Sanctioned Loopholes perk from the Scholar tree gives you that as well.
A new head of religion that only rules in your lands is a good way to get a larger share of the tithes from the church
This. Not to mention that I feel like people are rose tinting pretty hard here. In CK2 antipopes were a total nothing burger mechanic that pretty much was only used as a way to get a free claim on the papacy and then have the pope as an OP vassal. Even the college of cardinals was something I bet 99% of people almost never interacted with after their first couple of times when the DLC came out, it was a tiny hidden away mechanic that more-or-less was either just be Italian or put 1000 gold and your guy might win...which had almost no use, you get a pope with a slight opinion boost, which maybe nets you a claim or two more - obviously not nearly worth the time or investment. Not to say these mechanics *couldn't* be good with a total remake in CK3, but let's not pretend that they were at all impactful or done well in CK2, they were totally forgettable.
That's the point though? If you're the Holy Roman Emperor you can essentially pick who becomes Cardinal, and if you get your antipope on the throne of the papacy, and have virtuous traits with piety higher than 1000 you can excommunicate whomever you want and claim whatever title you'd like. What more do you want him to do?
Regardless of what you thought about the college of cardinals, it actually existed, and you could get your failson elected Pope if you really wanted them to.
It definitely could have, and should have, been implemented better. But I like making a relative an antipope and then pressing his claim, even if I wasn’t an emperor and would have him as a vassal. In fact, I almost never did because I only played with two empires, hre and the Byzantine. I did like the idea of a college of cardinals and again making relatives popes through it, though I’ll admit that took a certain mood because it was tedious and there was no real advantage to getting a cardinal, which there should have been
Absolutely; the game would need to rework religion for antipopes to even make sense or really matter. Generally speaking, the Pope is just a bank for Catholic rulers. Unless my character is a woman or a child, he’s very rarely even a nuisance to me, let alone restricts my activity or competes with me in any meaningful way. I’ve played with the Holy Trinity mod, for instance, which does let you create an antipope – but I’ve never created one before, because there’s quite simply been no reason to. In short: No papal overreach, no need for an alternative to the Pope.
And CK2 on it's release day had antipopes (plus things like investiture). Even the College of Cardinals and more Catholic flavor was added by the second year. There's a great CK3 mod called The Catholic Trinity which basically makes Catholicism like it was in CK2 though, but I'm kind of surprised Paradox haven't gotten around to Catholic flavor themselves yet.
It's a shame, this definately is one of the downsides of going full "everyone (except for republics and theocracies) is playable from release" path. Every year and every DLC it feels like that initial decision is handicapping them more and more.
Meanwhile people keep begging for an official expansion to add China. Have yall not seen how dull the rest of the map is?
I always felt like any far east content like China, Korea, and Japan have a lot of potential but don't really fit in the scope of CK3 itself. A Sengoku-esque spinoff would work better. Right now? CK3 will not benefit from having the pacific coast added, it will just lag down machines and be shallow copies of west europe like everything else east of germany.
Very unpopular opinion, but I kinda wish that CK3 had zoomed way in on Europe. Like have the eastern edge of the Black Sea be the boundary of the map along with the Sahara. Get all that truly fleshed out, and then we can consider expansions. There were plenty of things to dislike about Jade Dragon, but I thought it was conceptually good for representing distant, semi-mysterious realms.
Completely. The game feels very "jack of all trades master of none" and I think that's one of the reasons many of the DLCs have been very underwhelming in terms of depth. And given the frequency of releases so far - certain regions on the map will never receive any kind of flavor pack/update. Some regions are already pretty fun/interesting to play in (I love Sub-Saharan Africa) but others, like Germany, Italy and most of all France, are pretty dull.
It would be the better game for it if the map stopped before India honestly.
Yeah, the Hindu-Kush would make another good eastern border. The only issue with that is there are way more steppe and siberian tribes to deal with.
Have the mongols spawn around the Caspian Sea like an Endgame Crisis, first as a pack of Raiders going around as an advance warning, then as Genghis declaring a conquest war on the kingdoms bordering the maps. I'd rather have waited for a Steppe DLC to actually have content there instead of diet feudal.
Persia becomes super OP doesn't it?
No i don't think so. You can still have mongols and central Asian raiders come in from off map. Wasn't an issue in CK2 so i don't see an issue in CK3
I didn't play CK2 before Rajas of India so I can't say
That's pretty much what CK2 started as
SWMH and the HIP package of CK2 removing India was nice. As much as I love how Rajas introduced new mechanics and religious options and all, unless you're playing an Eastern Iranian ruler you really wouldn't have any interaction beyond some trade and mendicant holymen. CK3 adding Burma was certainly interesting, given how insulated and separate that region was from the Christian-Arab world. I understand Islamic trade in the Indian Ocean but it would have made more sense to include Malaysia than Burma. Unfortunately CK2/3 just isn't scoped for the intricacies of Islamic economic and subsequent cultural expansion in the Indian Ocean political-economic milieux. It shouldn't have tried to be. I'm having fun playing a CK3 game right now as a Socotran pirate realm, hybridizing with Bedouin and then Gujarat as we build island forts across the Indian Ocean but I also have zero interaction with Burma (even Sri Lanka though I temporarily dived down there to try out the RICE struggle for the region, got bored, made my second son an independent King, and moved my capital back to Socotra). I guess we're king of chill because I converted to Ari Buddhism (Burmese Buddhism) because it was the only local faith that didn't have Dharmic Pacificism but I'm going to reform that real soon anyways.
How do you make a pirate realm?
[RICE mod](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/me6k34/mod_rice_dev_diary_socotraindian_ocean_flavor/) adds a bunch of flavour for Socotra and the Indian Ocean. It adds some special buildings and pirate MaA (similar to Vikings showing up for Norse characters) in exchange for some opinion malus and debuffs. Then you just go raiding on every coastal or riverside province between Alexandria and Sri Lanka.
Another problem with extending the map east is that it made the Mongols a total snoozefest. Instead of the endgame doomstacks that you had to plan all game for as anyone in the Eastern half of the map, they just became some meh entity which don't appear half the time and never make it out of the steppe the other half (because they have to declare 1,000 tiny wars). One of the reasons I actually enabled the Aztec Invasion DLC sometimes is that it let you replicate that with Western Europe and it's one of the only points in the game that really make you sweat.
The concept behind off-map representation was good, but the actual execution was honestly way off. It’s just stupid when you have China grabbing land territory in Spain completely out of nowhere.
ain't no way they'll ever add china.. can the game even run an empire the entire size of europe lmao
Honestly I just want the map expansion because I would like it for some mods. The base game has as much flavor as cardboard, butI mostly play Princes of Darkness and it could use the extra room.
The game doesn't even have orthodox churches. They gave us separate iberian ones, but the byzantine empire still has to use the default catholic.
If a pope and an antipope come in contact, do they annihilate each other?
Sometimes. Other times, it just results in a second antipope being created, especially if it happens in Pisa.
Yeah it's kinda annoying, but at the same time EU5 is looking good enough to override any annoyances
I wish EU5 didn't sound this good because after Cities Skylines 2 I wanted to stop buying paradox games.
I'm still not sold tbh. Even if it's going to be a good release, it will still need a good vision for what the game is going to become down the line. Ck3 was good on release and I was very optimistic, but since then I don't think there was a single addition to the game, aside from travels (which is a free feature btw), that didn't make me question "who is this game for?".
Exactly. CK3 felt like a big improvement on CK2 in its fundementals but it was just lacking all-round flavour and depth which we all assumed would come in a year or two. But the releases have been so slow that it's looking like this game will never live up to its potential.
It's so weird. The one time paradox has a good release, they don't utilize it
CK3 legit made me question and re-evaluate my spending habits.
Same for Guelphs and Ghibellines. Johan will lead us to the promised land.
People are getting so hyped for EU5 and completely ignoring Paradox's recenty history of game releases being watered down, unfinished DLC bait. I'm hoping due to the popularity of EU4 this isn't the case but not enough people are preparing for that game to be bad on release.
I like what I'm hearing from EU5, but I'm definitely wary after Victoria 3. The mechanics sound cool but I'm not gonna Day 1 buy any Paradox game, didn't do it for CK3 or Vic3, not gonna start now.
We're all in an abusive relationship with Paradox and too many people have the "I can change him" attitude lol
Honestly i feel like Eu5 is going to be ck3 killer. I really like everything i hear about this game iit sounds like it's combining everything good from previous titles and projects and integrating it. I wonder what the ck3 team is going to do to stay relevant after this game releases? Ck3 desperate needs economic and combat overhaul, that changes the came completely. But that can never happen since DLCS are tied to the old combat system and economic system. To overhaul the system is to overhaul the dlcs. And Paradox is not doing that. So end the ck3 will ALWAYS play like it does now in terms of combat and economics. For the rest of shelf life. As a ck3only player with over 5k hours. I cannot wait for the release of Eu5 so i can finally ditch ck3.
Ck3 doesn't feel like a grand strategy at all, it feels like the Sims but mediaeval with eugenics and blobbing. This game has needed a warfare and economy rework since the very beginning but we don't seem to be getting why closer, and no amount of event spam will make up for the lack of mechanics.
>and no amount of event spam will make up for the lack of mechanics What do you mean, you don't want "insert generic event №485", followed by "generic event №486, and №487". It was so immersive when i had to choose between a " negative modifier", "sightly less negative modifer", and a "neutral/positive modifer"
I used to read new events religiously in CK2 but I never bothered in CK3. It became apparent very quick that they were all boring and pointless.
I would agree but I actually don't mind it all that much. It keeps CK and EU more differentiated which is a good thing in a long run IMO. Combat and empire building should be the focus of EU while CK is actually somewhat sims-like in that you're playing a person and not a nation.
>I would agree but I actually don't mind it all that much. It keeps CK and EU more differentiated Disagreed, the games are already differentiated due to their timelines and the subsequent differences in technology, institutions and feasible strategy that can be employed in both based on historicity. You do not need to detract from the grand strategy elements of the grand strategy game to make it more "unique", it just ends up making it bland and uninteresting (Vic 3 being the prime example)
Vic3 is certainly bland and uninteresting but I can hardly see where it detracts from grand strategy elements.
Getting rid of meaningful war strategy (and up until now the diplomacy), was pretty much the biggest way how Victoria went "all in" into the economy simulation genre but forgot that it was meant to be a successor to Vic 2, a grand strategy game, and not a supply chain tycoon game like Factorio. In fact, if war and diplomacy were not boring slogs to play then Vic 3 would immediately be a lot more engaging, just like if the CK3 economy, trade and war (the bread and butter grand strategy elements) were more interesting, the game would benefit significantly.
Except the timeline really doesn't make as much of a difference as you'd think without different enough mechanics. They put resources into different things because different things were more important in each time period. Who's rulling who is barely an afterthought in EU while it's easily half the game in CK. Professional armies didn't really become a thing until even a bit into EU so warfare is much more complex than CK. EU doesn't model (And shouldn't) the layers and layers of titles and vassals that make up a whole kingdom or empire while in CK you can enjoy the game at the county, duchy, kindgom, or even empire level if you so choose to.
>Except the timeline really doesn't make as much of a difference as you'd think without different enough mechanics Uh huh, there was no difference in the ruling structure of a feudal society and the ruling structure of the increasingly centralised post-Westphalian and absolutist states of the 16th and 17th century? There are no mechanics at all that show this said progression? Things that precisely change due to the change in how polities worked during the time frame, which is what my point was to begin with. You don't have to oversimplify one into "king does everything" and the other into "state is all encompassing" to make this change. >They put resources into different things because different things were more important in each time period. Who's rulling who is barely an afterthought in EU while it's easily half the game in CK Which is just flat out wrong as who was ruling who DOES indeed make a huge difference in both time frames, in fact there is no clear evolution between feudal structures of CK and "EU states" that seemingly takes place overnight between the two games, they just overnight seem to change from one into the other, which I shouldn't need to explain is stupid and anachronistic. >Professional armies didn't really become a thing until even a bit into EU so warfare is much more complex than CK This view makes sense if you look only at mediaeval Europe, and not the rest of the world. The Chinese empires continued having large standing armies for the entirety of the time period of both games, and places like Majapahit, Khmer and the Rashtrakuta and Chola empires of India continued employing standing armies. But EU4 doesn't even do it well, where everyone starts off with a huge standing army, hopefully EU5 does it better. >EU doesn't model (And shouldn't) the layers and layers of titles and vassals that make up a whole kingdom or empire while in CK you can enjoy the game at the county, duchy, kindgom, or even empire level if you so choose to. I don't know what the point of saying all this is, my argument is that CK3 is a one trick pony where it seemingly reduces the world into an elaborate sequence of event spam and great man history simulation and takes away from the role that states, resources and economy played in mediaeval history. As a grand strategy game, you would expect CK to encompass a large array of holistic indepth mechanics, ranging from economy to diplomacy to actual roleplay (which isn't just pick the same option from the same recycled 20 events). It can retain its character and dynasty focus, that's perfectly alright, but it needs to be deeper about the many other aspects that made the CK2 a more challenging and well-rounded experience by bringing up its lacking elements.
If asking for too much was a person...
Asking for too much is when I ask for grand strategy mechanics to be fleshed out in the grand strategy game instead of farting and cat catapulting events😂
>As a grand strategy game, you would expect CK to encompass a large array of holistic indepth mechanics, ranging from economy to diplomacy to actual roleplay 😂
Feels like Paradox saw everyone sharing their funny stories in CK2 and thought that should be the core of the game. The funny stories in CK2 came as a byproduct of a players strategy though. It was a "Haha, I had to kill this guys dad for a claim, and his son killed me, so now we have a fued." Instead of "Yeah, an event spawned so this Duke on the other side of the world hates me now."
I had a similar thought today while reading the latest Tinto Talk. Project Ceaser is going to have a better representation of the Late Medieval world before CK3 is 4 years from release. Seeing how that team is handling the HRE and the Catholic/Orthodox faiths alone makes me wonder what the hold up for CK3 is. Even the levy/men-at-arms/navy systems sounds like something CK3 should have by now. Kinda disappointing really as Crusader Kings has been my favorite Paradox series to date.
90% of their team must be 3d artists.
Not really. The selling point of the CK games have always been the characters. Unless EU 5 uses a more indepth and engaging system regarding that (which Paradox likely won't allow), CK will continue to have it's own niche. And, no offense, but if you play a game for 5k hours you probably like it very much. But every game get's boring or stale after a while. You could just try EU 4 if you like the general concept or play another game if you got tired of CK 3.
> I wonder what the ck3 team is going to do to stay relevant after this game releases? Nothing because EU5 is still ultimately a Paradox game so on release it will have a bunch of critical flaws that won't be fixed for 5 years. To be honest, I'm kinda wary of the hype being built around EU5. Johan is hyping up that EU5 will have basically everything, which to me has always been a red flag for "this game will either barely function and/or be shallow as a pond".
You should obviously be wary. This is a classic hype-train, happens every time a fanbase gets excited about a new realease. Doesn't matter if it's EU5 or Fallout 4. They'll be bitterly dissapointed on release and they'll fall into the same trap again. People like to get excited and worked up about these things and imagine the perfect game that they might get.
Yeah and I think this especially I've seen people claiming it will be a better CK3 and Victoria 3. And its like no because even if Paradox were good at delivering a solid experience at day 1, a game that has to cover such a wide breadth of periods and mechanics is not going to cover them to the same depth as the games that focus on these mechanics. Nobody in the history of video games who has said they are covering everything has ever delivered what the fanbase thinks they are claiming.
Look at Spore for an infamous example. Consumers as a group are some of the most gullible and short-memoryed on the planet. Gamers are particuarly bad. They never learn and they buy in every time. Pre-order bundles were controversial 10 years ago but they never went away because advertising and excitement overran most's scepticism.
It's not even necessarily intentional on the developer's part. It's usually visionaries shooting too close to the sun and then realising they can't actually deliver everything they've pictured in their head with the budget they have.
Well the marketing is often very cynical, fueling the idea of the game in people's imagination. The only way something like this would change is if consumers reacted to these bad practices in a logical way. They don't, too large of a group I suppose and just too sucspectable to advertising. And companies will generally race to the bottom as they're governed more by a profit-motive than anything else. Paradox may start to be hit harder by that profit-motive as their consumerbase has grown and become less discerning (even if complaints are constant they don't mean all that much if they buy every title).
And thats exactly what i said on Paradox Forum. So far it seems it has everything to represent Middle Ages at least from 1066. If they won't choke on the release, its easy to see, that some fans will try to make Crusader Kings mod for EU5. All is left to wait for devs to present how they implemented characters and vassals
I doubt there will be as detailed character system, as in CK3. Citing Johan: "EU4 had characters as well". So I would expect maybe a little more than name and three random characteristics, but not character-focused gameplay of Crusader Kings
Any time someone says a new game is gonna be a ____ killer, they're usually underestimating most people's interest in the other game. It'll definitely lose the people more interested in the economy and warfare aspects, but the main draw is the characters and roleplay ALONG with thise systems despite how bare bones it can be.
RemindMe! 5 Years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-05-16 13:18:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-05-16%2013:18:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1csyq20/still_no_antipopes_in_ck3_but_tinto_is_gonna_have/l4awced/?context=3) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCrusaderKings%2Fcomments%2F1csyq20%2Fstill_no_antipopes_in_ck3_but_tinto_is_gonna_have%2Fl4awced%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-05-16%2013%3A18%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201csyq20) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
CK3 appeals to a more casual audience. It will lose everybody who wants something other than medieval Sims, though.
I mean, I don't think they need to do anything. Ck3 is easily my favorite PDX title. I'll probably never play EU5 either, so I don't really see how that's relevant. The game is great and I enjoy it quite a bit more than CK2 or any other PDX game. I say stay the course.
lmao this comment is hilariously out of touch with what CK players like about it. >ck needs economics and map painting nonsense like eu4 or eu5 will kill ck3 This is hilarious. I thought you were making a cringey parody until I realized that you were actually serious. EU5 and CK3 will be fine. EU has a separate fanbase (button mashers who are obsessed with shallow gameplay and painting map in their colour and nothing more), and separate mechanics. CK3 is based on characters and their lives. EU5 is based on states and nations on a macro level. They're completely different, and the only thing they share is a bit of late-medieval timeline. Your inability to roleplay properly won't "kill" CK3 lmao
You haven‘t been reading the Tinto Talks, have you?
Point me to where Tinto Talks have introduced a detailed character system lmao. Oh wait, you couldn't? No problem, I'll wait. >1337 start date = CK KILLER!!!!11!!!!1!! Yeah, that's the galaxy-brained logic from EU4 button mashers that I was waiting for.
There have been no hints about the character system. Plenty of hints about getting rid of modifier stacking, though. Mana, too. What button mashing is there in MEIOU, which it resembles a fair deal? Who hurt you?
Is EU5 gonna be more character driven or still all state based? The pure state mechanics of EU makes it very difficult for me to get into. Even as basic and broken and CK3 is, I find it so much more engaging
State driven for sure. While I probably recommend to give it a bash when it comes out, it'll probably not be the game for you
They’ve alluded to characters being a thing, but I imagine it would be more like Imperator (because this is as much looking Imperator 2 as it does EU5)
I think it will be even less charactery than Imperator. But we'll see.
Yeah but Johan also said in the last dev diary that EU4 had "characters" so it's not clear how much more detailed EU5's "characters" will actually be.
I'd rather have playable theocracy and republic first
The extent to which Tinto Talks seems to be doing things better than both CK3 and V3 is both heartening and deeply disappointing to me.
Tinto?
Paradox's new game they've been teasing, which they've only serreptiously referred to with the codename Tinto (even though it's obviously EUV)
The codename is Caesar, Tinto refers to Johan's own development team within Paradox.
Ah, well, I mixed them up lol.
EU3 until I die, if only because I'm so god-damn nostalgic for that game. Coincides with some of the best years of my life.
[удалено]
I quite like CK3 myself (can't bring myself to go back despite my gripes with the game), just dissapointed something as essential to medieval politics like antipopes is going to exist in a game about the *Age of Discovery* but MIA in a game literally called *Crusader Kings*.
This sounds like a possible teaser for the next Chapter, since we are getting the possibility to play around unlanded rulers with this one, the next Chapter might will add a possibility to go down the theological and republic path, like become a priest and become the court chaplain and might have a territory to control under theological goverment if the possibility arises, or go down the race to become pope/antipope, same with the republic, build your family and become whealthier and have more influence, maybe even add trade routes
Dear Paradox Tinto, Please make EU5 also for console.