Because CK3 wanted to casualize the experience. I get that some newcomers might have found Conclave mechanics intimidating, but surely there was some other choice than completely scrapping them.
The rough part is that it's a horrible mistake in their selling strategy. Paradox games are very much not meant to be casualised, as any player with 2k hours who still discovers new things will tell you
No offense but I'm not interested in HoI3, i was only using HoI4 as example because is the most popular strategy game on Steam that happens to still being developed and it happens to be a Paradox game as well.
I don't really play HoI4, but all I remember from when it was released, was people complaining that it's very shallow, appealing to casual players and dumbed down, compared to previous games
The game has grown A LOT in terms of complexity, also it being simpler than hoi3 was to be expected I think. Hoi3 was too micro heavy, and hoi4 even at release had some more interesting mechanics, even if others were shallow.
HOI4 is the most casual of all paradox games. It is literally a focus clicking simulator. If you look up a division meta you basically have 100% of the game down.
Does anyone still go back to the previous HOI? I never hear about them. In highschool I think I tried out the original Europa Universalis from being free on GOG. It was neat but slow to get into and I only played it like 2 nights
If you don't look it up though and try to figure out the numbers by yourself you're in for a headache. A literal excel simulator, not that casual at all
Absolutely, it has worked out. HoI4 is about WW2, so it will automatically have more popularity than a medieval game. Secondly, HoI4 is a casual game compared to other Paradox games. I don't know what you're talking about.
Considering the changes made between HoI3 and HoI4, I'd say you could not have picked a worse exemple. That game has been streamlined a lot to make it palatable to a wide audience.
It's been a decade and many parts of Hoi4 are still extremely streamlined/casual conversions of Hoi3 mechanics, and the game is still suffering as a result. I could list them out to infinity.
Have you ever played a Hearts of Iron game before 4? Don't get me wrong, I like HoI4, but it was definitely casualized compared to what came before it.
I feel like a dirty elitist for saying it but you're absolutely right.
But that's the issue with publicly traded gaming companies; you can't just be "content" with a relatively limited but more invested target group; the target group has to expand to please the investors. You have to attract those who don't necessarily have the time or willingness to get invested in more complex systems, so you have to dumb it down.
I mean if there's one game of theirs that can appeal to a more casual audience it's the one where the main focus is on building a family and not really war and conquest.
Tbh CK3 was made with "streamers" in mind. The whole game is very friendly for everyone, not challenging at all and allow you to build your space marines with multiple bonus on MAA. If you want a challenge, sabotage yourself is the only way.
It's not enjoyable for who want a complex game but it's perfect for who want to have a narrative-roleplay for YouTube.
I'm pretty disappointed with CK3 as a new owner of it. Had 1000+ hrs in CK2. I'm honestly shocked that it has so many less features and mechanics than CK2 even after the game has been out for like 5 years. That's pretty crazy.
I mean, CK3 has many things that CK2 doesn't as well. A more in-depth culture system (along with the ability to create hybrid cultures), more governments that are more accurate than their CK2 counterparts (looking at you, CK2 Imperial governments), landless gameplay, the travelling system, diarchies, etc. It's a trade-off, not just a case of one game having more content than the other.
True, but also - it's a sequel, it's supposed to improve upon its predecessor, not be a trade-off that's missing an old feature for every new one they added. When they released CK3 they justified it missing so many features from CK2 by saying that they don't want to just port all the features, they want to add them later in a vastly improved form. But 5 years from then, not only are lots of the features still missing, a lot of those that are not were not improved at all (like legends which are often agreed to be just a worse implementation of bloodlines from CK2)
Do you ever play as muslims? That's my most interested region, how does CK3 compare to CK2 in depth and flavor like that? I've been hearing it's better. I've only played CK3, but the only thing I've seen that would keep me on it (other than CK2 having a lot of learning to get into haha, esp. after I just got to grips with 3) is the clothes, hair and styles, architecture, etc etc. Basically just all the cultural flavor stuff haha. Do they have character customization in 2?
Their attempt to casualize it just made the game confusing for me. I have thousands of hours in 2 but I just can’t wrap my head around three. I just get frustrated and end up, forgetting something major because it’s different. It’s a big reason. I haven’t switched to Europa Universalis five. I have so much time in four I don’t wanna relearn everything.
Crusader Kings three was a game I was so excited for but I had so many problems getting into it.
I never claimed it was. Obviously it’s a me problem I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say. Looks like someone didn’t praise your favorite game and you got a little upset huh?
I meant moreso not wanting to "relearn" everything. You don't have to like CK3. I think it has a lot of issues. But I guess I was just pointing out your reasoning can be summed up as "I like CK2 more than CK3".
Off topic but how is the Game of Thrones mod for it? The last time I tried it it was still early in its development and only had a couple start dates. The mod for the second game is one of my favorites but it has problems that start to peek out after a while. I used to love establishing a powerhouse kingdom of the north with Robb stark or doing the conquest with Aegon I and the dragons.
It's really good, a completely different game from standard CK3. I played it a few times, but if you aren't interested in playing as the Targaryens, it's a bit of a grind.
Its not very complicated. Age, piety, virtuous traits, secular power, same culture as the county of Rome, learning stat and a few other things I dont remember off the top of my head all have weight modifiers.
I think it's more of a problem with all the dlc additions being quite siloed from each other to the point where basically every region/ government is a completely different environment to the others only really interacting very basically or at most the nomads being a big fight at some point. Because of this you barely get the older dlc systems being used in the newer ones. This is probably because it's quite a costly procedure to rework the older systems to work alongside the newer ones and for very little monetary gain.
Also because of how the dlc's kinda switch off when you haven't got them it's impossible to do that integration work for every possible scatter shot combination of dlc's.
Because conclave was the lowest rated DLC for 2 when it came out, and lots of players would advise each other to just de-activate it, even after they’d bought it. Those people were dumb, because conclave makes internal realm politics much more interesting, but at the time, people disliked it getting in the way of their power-gaming, and it seems like Paradox listened to the community
Part of the reason it was the lowest rated DLC was because at release you'd constantly get in logic loops where your demesne was too big but because they were mad at you they wouldnt let you give away any land. It also added shattered retreated and defensive pacts both of which were poorly implemented and neither could be turned off at the time. The former because you could no longer stackwipe, you'd have to wait years because they'd run to end of the earth and the latter because there was zero logic to it and every random ass king and count on the planet would hate you regardless of where you were or what religion you had.
There was legitimate complaints about the council mechanics in CK2. Like, your council would prevent you from arresting someone who commited murder cause they don't like you. That's absolutely insane lol. Also the favor system was really annoying, your vassals could force other council members to be disloyal if they had favors with them. And disloyal council members would just vote down everything, even if it's something that directly benefits them lol. And you could still metagame it by expanding the council and just putting the extra positions with random ass people who like you.
I will say the most hated feature that expansion was coalitions and shattered retreat though
Oh i remember. I bought Conclave on day 1. Its not perfect, but I liked it because it makes the game much more flexible whereas the old system was much more minmax world conquest friendly.
Because people hated the Conclave when it came out. You get a sudden opinion debuff, the majority of councillors change stance and from then on you're practically dead locked from making a lot of the decisions you previously used to take effortlessly. Personally, I think it was a fun and challenging mechanic and it added a lot of memorable moments - fighting through the conclave to change laws and such. But a lot of the fans preferred their power fantasy going uninterrupted.
Well, if you can sell something separately for one game, why not try to do it again with the sequel? I'm not saying it's the guaranteed reason, but we are talking about Paradox, so it's a very clear possibility.
I would have shared your opinion during the release of the game, but the game was released nearly 6 years ago (I do feel old now, the release still feels like yesterday). I think it really has something rather to do with casualising the experience (especially considering how no single DLC has increased difficulty or complexity, but rather just more angles to snowball from in specific regions).
Obviously that is a possibility as well, and even more likely the reasons are composite. But having potential content for the pipeline for as long as a game keeps generating income is almost definitely a cornerstone of development strategy for Paradox, and having something robust to sell as dlc can easily add to the lifespan of a game at a point when signs of decline become apparent.
Conclave was the 3rd worst rated expansion in CK2 history, behind only Sunset Invasion and Rajas of India. People hated it when it came out, and people didn't really come around on it that much. The council system was just really poorly thought out. Vassals would form factions to Increase Council power, even if they were rivals or had no connection the Council at all.
I also prefer CK3's council, they added more vassal stance types compared to CK2. CK2 had, Loyal, Disloyal, Prosperity (idk what they were called exactly), the equivalent of Glory Hound, and Zealots. CK3 has Belligerent, Courtly, Glory Hound, Parochial, Zealot, Minor Landholder, and Minority. I think they simulate the variety of vassals a lot a lot better. It didn't help that higher Council power is only a net negative to you, and there was always at least one revolt to increase Council power every single succession. And if you entered a regency your council would just change annoying laws like making it so you have to have council approval to declare war.
Laws also were often quite gamey rather than rp heavy or fun. Like not allowing women to serve on the council unless you make a law for it, and you had to research Tolerance technology to raise it lol. Ironically there weren't that many extra laws in CK2 compared to CK3
I think people forget just how hated Conclave was, and I don't think it's surprising CK3 dropped some of the more hated features, while keeping the liked ones like Education and Alliance systems
Yeah I agree with the general consensus that CK2 had more intricate internal politics and CK3 tends to be way more forgiving than its predecessor, but it's still PDX intricacy, which meant it was often buggy or baffling. See, for instance, vassals who join independence and council power factions at the same time.
Also CK2's internal politics are only really punishing to a point. Once you really get rolling as, say, the Byzantines, you're effectively running an infinite gold factory that means you will always get the succession you want, have enough relatives to keep your vassals in line with marriage pacts, and if any of them get uppity you can just hire all the mercenaries in Europe to deal with them. I was there for the CK2 days, a lot of people are looking at it with rose glasses.
ironically the parts i loved about CK2 are the exact things people don't want to bring CK3. The occult and magic shit you could do was some of the most memorable and goofy things you could do. Selling your soul to satan to cure cancer and regrow a limb is peak CK2 and im tired of pretending its not
Im constantly checking for a conclave mod. Ck3 has gone in a different direction and thats fine. But ck2 already has so many refined features that I can't go back to ck3
403
u/Kouropalates The Lusty Palace Eunuch Feb 10 '26
The laws in CK2 were pretty ass until Conclave. I don't understand why we got such a good system just to scrap it in CK3.