Wave said:
EU3 had 4 expansions and as I haven't played vanilla or Napoleon's ambition I may be wrong but when you bought the actual game there was no limits of what you could do and what you couldn't, all game features were working (tough in as is condition I've understood..), expansions did as the name says, expanded the game and added things into it, instead of allowed the player use the existing features that were locked like in CK2 DLCs.
Yes, you are wrong. You are very, very wrong. You are wrong to the point it is laughable.
EU3 vanilla was a so-so game, inferior to EU2 in almost every aspect. The IN, which is the first you have played, was the expansion that made EU3 a masterpiece (HTTT and DW were expansions that you could say expanded the game rather than fixed it). Until then, it was an unfinished game unworthy of its predecessors. The first two expansions have practically been overglorified patches you were forced to buy to have a good game.
Additionally, CK2 vanilla did not have any locked features. The locked features were added with the patch that followed the expansion. The difference between the old model and the new one is that in the old one those features would be added via an expansion and nothing would be given for the free. however, the new model add it for free for two simple reasons:
1. so that players who play together in MP don't need to have the same expansions
2. so that the AI can use the features against you, thus the ones who don't buy the expansion because they don't want to play those factions would not be hurt
Again, CK2 1.0 did NOT have locked features. They were given as free gift later so that less people would be forced to buy the expansion.
Also, NONE of CK2 DLC have been overglorified patches (while ALL games made by PI in past had at least one overglorified patch you had to BUY). SoI expanded the Muslims (for free if you don't play with them), LoR expanded Byzantinium (thus was an Byzantine expansion), TR expanded the Republics (for free if you don't play the Reoublics) and ToG expanded the Pagans (for free if you don't play the Pagans). Additionally, more than half of features created for each expansions (the Pentarchy, new Tech system, Holy Sites System, Monarchy Vs. Republic feuds, etc.) have been given out for FREE (again, something that was impossible to happen in the old model).
Vae Victis was a huge thing for Rome, it re-created several aspects of the game and brought them to life. Perhaps more expansions could have done same thing to EU:R as they did to EU3 but I believe that without VV Rome would have been forgotten a long time ago.
Nope, VV was an overglorified patch. Senate is such an essential part of Roman Republic it is ridiculous it was not there. And even with VV's new features, EU:R is still grand in lack of features and feels even less complete than Sengoku which never ever got an expansion.
In other words, EU:R was sold in two pieces, both pieces being required if you wanted to have a proper game. EU:R vanilla is something I would not recommend to anyone and I would recommend EU:R with VV only to those who would not mind a half-finished game.
And the same went for each old game: it only became really good after an expansion or two (thus many didn't buy the vanilla at all). CK2 and EU4 may be sold in pieces, but you don't need to have those pieces to have a proper game and PI finally got rid of that ugly reputation at least to some extent.
I just haven't yet (and probably never will) forgotten or forgiven the situation when I found myself staring at the CK2 map for the first time and realizing that I'm not allowed to play half of the nations because I haven't bought extra content into the game.
Not fault of the New DLC Model. CK1 followed the old model and it had only Christian Nobles as playable. Forget about playable Muslims and Pagans, even Christians were lacking in its final post-expansion version (CK1
V in rest of the post).
CK2 1.0 is all CK1
V was and four times more, with the DLC and patches expanding it to something CK1 would never dream of reaching.
In other words, what you complain about has NOTHING to do with the DLC model. If it had, CK1
V would have come with properly represented Christians and playable Muslims and Pagans. Yet, Muslims and Pagans were never playable there and Christians were not properly represented even with the expansion. Portraits in CK2 1.0 were already more diverse than CK1
V and unit models were practically non-existent in CK1
V. Since CK1 never had those as playable, CK2 following the old model would also not have them as playable either so you would have been equally disappointed.
Of course, the game would have looked really bad if they had left out everything that wasn't playable in Vanilla but my view is that if you've sold something already you're supposed to give that to the customer.
They sold you CK2 1.0. Patches added a bunch of free stuff that together is worth 20$ at
minimum (based on what expansions in old model sold) so you already got two times more than you payed for. Hell, even the game description makes it clear you play with Christian Monarchs so even by law you got exactly what the game advertised.
Sprite packs were a thing that I never understood and thus I haven't spent my time to find out why to pay for them but perhaps people keep buying them too..
Perhaps? XD Unit Model DLC's were popular since EU3 (I think EU3 still has more Unit Model DLC than CK2 does) and have been nicely sold in HoI3 and Vic2 as well (yes, they existed even in the old model so, again, you are complaining about the wrong thing).
Victoria 2 without expansions? I haven't played any expansion and very little of Vicky in general (thus I don't even understand all aspects of the game) but it seems to be far more complete as is than Rome was even with early version of Vae Victis.
It seems complete until you play a little bit more and realize it was unbalanced with a great number of features not working properly. THD fixed it and HoD expanded the game.
