Hey folks!
After a long journey in the real world (read: got older, developed back pain, and had to upgrade my coffee machine before my PC), I’ve finally returned to the Paradox throne. I’m a seasoned CK2 viking with way too many hours logged on Noob Island (you know the one – Ireland, of course), but I haven’t touched the map since 2020.
Now I’ve taken the plunge into CK3, bought the whole bundle including Chapter IV (yes, I know –
shut up and take my money!), and I’m ready for new intrigues, dynastic disasters, and high-risk low-reward marriages.
So I ask you, fellow time travelers:
- Where do you recommend I start?
I think it's important to start from a position of recognizing some of the fundamental design differences from CK2 to CK3, so that you don't go in with the wrong mindset. My position / advice for you is that CK2 was, at its heart, a map-painting game. CK3, at its heart, is a dynasty-spreading game.
This started with how the succession system worked.
In CK2,
realms stay together by default. In CK2,
only elective-gavelkind (the worst succession) would create new top-level titles that could split the realm on succession. Gavelkind would split what you held, but any feudal / not-unreformed pagan could keep the realm together simply by... not having more titles on hand at the moment. Primogeniture could be achieved in the first generation by a min-maxing player, but it wasn't
that deep for an AI either. This
greatly facilitated gradual blobbing of the world map by even the AI. Realms might fall into civil war / instability, but the top-level title holds together. Once a succession crisis stabilizes, the top-level leader would be able to conquer and add more territory which, again, would be kept on succession.
This, in turn, meant that the player was
strongly encouraged to play at the level of Emperor. Because the CK2 power system directly scaled with breadth of conquest- more retinues the more counties your realm conquered- blobbing empires could get critical mass of weight of numbers. Unless you were willing to pre-emptively accept being a vassal, the most reliable way to keep your independence was to be a bigger empire.
The DLC eco-system encouraged this with a dynamic of
always expect the player to be on top. Nearly every DLC is structured in ways to give the best DLC rewards to the top-level character. It's not just that
only an Emperor can form Rome or united India- it's that secret societies hide the best stuff (for the order master), the biggest empires can handle plagues best (by moving the character away), Merchant Republics are a bore
unless you are the head family, and so on. Even the DLC that offer 'endgame' challenges- Aztec Invasion or fighting to install a dynast on China- are really only for mighty empires to go against event-spawned troops.
This all created a game where the strategic challenge is to get your but on top of an Empire and to stay there. This gets easier the more of the map you control, where each conquest gives fewer remainers to focus on.
In CK2, strategic success is
conquering the map with your own realm.
CK3 approaches with a different philosophy that- if you approach it with the CK2 mindset- will see you crush the difficulty curve and wonder why.
In CK3,
realms divide by default. CK3 locks the techs to
not partition the top-level realm to the later game. In the 867 start especially, the most common start, you start with the title-creation effect of elective-gavelkind (but with no election), and can't even
access 'just' normal gavelkind until tech era 2 several decades in. Learning to manage this is a core gameplay challenge for the player... but once you learn, it leads to a permanent imbalance of power over the AI. The AI will never be as good at keeping the realms together as the player.
This means the AI will rarely provide an expansionist challenge to the player. AI realms will consistently divide in the early-eras before they can blob the next level of power. The main exceptions- the Conquerors- are basically random AI given cheat codes.
However, this means the player is
encouraged to play at the level of King or below. In terms security, emperor-ship is overkill. Most people find it the least interesting part of CK3. Due to how both faction and external war declarations work, emperors can become hyper-stable. They are also the least able to afford things other than war due to how cost scaling works in the early-mid game. What they can afford are the admittedly worst-balanced part of CK3, the Men at Arms, which provide players with minimal effort to have major military dominance. Conquering an Empire is really, really, easy.
However, there are a many benefits for playing within rather than atop the feudal hierarchy. Being
on a liege's council gives bonuses a top-level liege cannot get. Various decisions- especially forming special Kingdoms- are limited to non-Emperors. The game even encourages you to
lean into realm partition by actually rewarding it. CK3 has a resource of Renown, basically family-shared prestige, that scales with the number of
independent dynasty members. Direct vassal-dynasts do not contribute. A realm that divides is another dynast for monthly renown.
The DLC system eco-system also
incentivizes the player to not be at the top. Nearly every DLC is structured in a way that while everyone can benefit,, lower tier rulers can benefit
disproportionately more from various cornerstone mechanics. The Royal Courts are easier to get bigger bonuses for 'taller' Kingdoms than 'wide' Empires. Legitimacy is easier to get and has a bigger impact earlier for lower-tier rulers. With Roads to Power, you can always choose a favored child to leave your established powerful empire, adventure away, and then re-enter another realm's hierarchy from the bottom.
This all creates a game where the strategic challenge is to get your family's butts on thrones abroad and keep them there. This gets harder the more of them on the map there are and the less you can help them all.
In CK3, strategic succession is
spreading the dynasty beyond your realm.
- What’s a good “first campaign” in CK3 for a rusty but experienced player who knows the madness of CK2?
1066 Murchad of Ireland is still tutorial island for a reason. CK3 has a much better tutorial lead-in, and it's centered on him.
Murchad is interesting / notable because you can marry into the conquest over England early on. You're not able to decisively shift the scales by any means, but you can get claims for future use. The ultimate victor can also be determined by game rules, and so if you want to you can guarantee you'll get called into eventual complications, like William the Conqueror and France, and so on. Murchad is good for learning how to get
involved in other people's trouble, since your starting area is safe / easy to trounce, but learning how to get an excuse to war elsewhere is a useful skill.
Two other suggestions, both 867: Karling Europe, Iberian Struggle, or
Karling Europe has the variety of 'could I inherit by skulldaggery' / 'claim-wars I could pursue' / 'I think I'll get involved in something else while people drag me back in' mix depending on who you start as. It has a natural culmination point of (re)founding the Holy Roman Empire if you're up for that, or trying to keep the dynasty on top even as dynasts kill eachother for crowns.
In the Iberian Struggle, Hermenexildo Gutierrez Menedez of Gallacia is a small fish in a medium pond. You are the vassal, but also best friend, of the main Christian King. You have a special artifact to try to fight for. You are in a prime position to go for Portugal, while engaging in the Iberian Struggle's mechanics. Iberia is very non-typical, but Hermen is also not a character you can immediately bull-rush the neighborhood with, forcing you to be more tactical.
- Are those damn bishops still ruining everything, or has someone else taken the crown?
The biggest annoyance ruining things is being Emperor. Use the choose your destiny / 'play as someone other than your primary heir' selection after dying to keep the game fresh.
A specific point if that you can select a favored child, and guarantee they will be an option of who you play as. This can let you do anything from play as a vassal of your dynastic-emperor, to adventure away and start somewhere else.
Another aspect of common annoyance is too-much information. If / when you are up for mods, consider ObfusCKate, a mod that deliberately limits the specificity of information you have access to so that you can only make judgements on general tends ('person has good stat') rather then perfect information ('person has the best martial stat in the game').
I’ve always loved playing as the Norse, and my fingers are itching to raid with the boys again – but I’m open to suggestions. Should I revive the old gods? Start as a jarl in Scandinavia? Or is there a new “noob friendly” start that offers a good intro to CK3’s (slightly more polished) chaos?
Norse Sigurdr
Norse Sigurdr is your power viking power fantasy. He's one of the viking brothers who are all one big happy / divided dynasty from the UK to Ukraine. You are in a prime position to do a lot, from raiding northern Europe as a viking menace, reforming / protecting the faith, converting to Catholicism early, and so on. He can easily expand selectively and place children as Kings of small Kingdoms from spain to the byzantine empire, which are stones-throws away from dynamic regions.
He can also setup for an easy raiding of norther neurope and byzantines and even arabs. You can chain-conquer the island of Gotland off of Sweden, and from there range the black sea coast. From the black sea, you can attack Krete / Cyprus / Venice. From these, you can freely raid from northern europe, the mediterranean, the byzantines, and even the arabs.
