• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

J0k3rzW!ld

Private
27 Badges
Jun 17, 2018
16
38
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Hey Everyone,

Just putting this out there to see others opinions and reasonings. What direction you think CK3 is going in compared to its predecessor CK2 and in comparison with other Grand Strategy games in PDX's lineup.

In my opinion the Role-Playing element has taken the stage over CK2 which I can't say has made CK3 worse as a result just "different", in a way were it seems now it's lacking in other areas because of it.

Maybe an elephant in the room was CK3 was determined to be an easier gateway game for more casual minded players to slowly transition them to other more complex titles in the catalog? Would it have been better to just make a newer title if that was the case?

Or maybe not.

Maybe things will get fleshed out more in due time.

Is the Grand Strategy Genre changing as a whole?

Thank you for my Ted talk.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If a GSG to you is just EU, then, no.

But I see no reason to be that narrow. CK is a GSG-RPG hybrid. I think it's kind of silly to expect all GSGs to feel the same. There's room for diversity and genre mixing, we don't need to police the boundary. I think it is cool that PDX makes several GSGs that are all really distinct with unique focuses.

I'm personally not thrilled with some of the direction that CK3 has been going in, but that doesn't make it not a GSG. GSG is not synonymous with "good", it's a genre, not an assertion of quality. The fact that I find CK3 mediocre just makes it a mediocre GSG, not some other genre. To think otherwise is extremely narrow-minded, and frankly, bad for the genre.

I also think that the assertion that CK is somehow watering down GSGs as a whole is ridiculous and indicative of someone not really playing GSGs - you only need to look as far as Vic 3 to see that much more difficult, strategic-oriented games still exist and are being actively developed by Paradox. Vic 3 isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea of course, but you certainly can't argue it's for "casuals".
 
  • 12Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I've always said this but CK2 and 3 are 100% GSG, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the RPG genre.

There's more roleplaying to be seen, and done, in a game like Stellaris than Crusader kings, in which you can create entire empires with a certain "personality" in mind, and then use it's ethical system to ensure both you, and the AI, act accordingly, there are even some event chains that are only matched by some of the CK2 events, like the Worm in which you can radically alter the destiny of your species.

CK3 is as much of an RPG as Call of Duty is an RPG, incorporating a few light RPG mechanics doesn't change a game's genre, in fact, I'd guess more than half the modern games nowadays incorporate certain RPG mechanics like XP, skills, levels, etc... This is nothing new to CK3, in fact, having rulers, sucession and events based on their personal lives is nothing new to Paradox games either, even EU4, Stellaris, Imperator and HoI4 have those, having a bit more of it couldn't possibly change a game's genre, just the scope.

CK3, as a GSG is a map game, you spend 99% of your time staring at a map, with borders, the way to interact with the game is through those borders, you conquer or you get conquered, you gather resources, then conquer some more, or lose (lol) in the process, the Crusader Kings series doesn't add a layer of RPG, it just adds a second layer of strategy, so you're playing 2 strategy games at once.

1: Your kingdom, it's borders, it's economy, it's buildings, it's armies and it's allies
2: Your dynasty, it's thrones, it's prestige, it's ties, and it's allies

You're trying to expand your kingdom's borders, while also minding your dynasty power, trying to help out their kingdoms as they indirectly give you more power as well, you're both the state head, and the family head, and much like other GSG, you do not play "a guy", you play as a throne, or the spirit of a nation, after all, it is possible to abdicate and start playing as your own heir before your character is actually dead, if you truly were The character, that wouldn't be possible.

Of course, some people claim that many of the design changes make it a bad GSG, and I don't disagree, but calling it an RPG has always been a coping mechanism, "the game balance can be broken because it's an RPG", or "the military system can suck because it's an RPG" or "the game can be too easy because it's an RPG", etc... As if being an RPG had anything to do with bad design, bad balance or being easy, to those I dare they play the Pathfinder series and then come back claiming RPGs are supposed to be easy.

If you had to put it on a scale I'd say it's probably like 95% GSG 4% RPG 1% other, which wouldn't be too distant from other paradox games, the difference is probably 1~2%.

If you want to use the term in the loosest sense possible, the sure, it's an RPG, and so is Doom, as you're roleplaying the Slayer, and in Command & conquer you're roleplaying GDI or Nod, so if CK3 is an RPG, every game is also an RPG.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
What does OP consider to be the strategic challenge of the game?

Strategy games are about strategies to reach a specific goal. However, you have to identify what that goal actually is. Particularly if the game offers you more things you can sink time into. Those things are not necessarily the strategic challenge.

I have maintained over years that CK is not a strategy game in the sense of military strategy. War is a means, not an end. The franchise has never been about an end-game of massive great power conflicts akin to WW1. Even CK2 was not a military strategy game. It had systemic biases towards larger and larger realms, but it was pretty easy to out-blob the world if you wanted to try. Military dominance has always been more power fantasy than balanced mechanic.

But that would imply a significant difference between CK as a franchise and most strategy games. Most strategy games are military strategy, especially any variation of 4X genre.

My view has long been that the strategic challenge metric of CK3 has been monthly dynastic renown, which serves as a proxy for how widespread and established your dynasty is outside of your realm. Most of the most 'overpowered' mechanics of the game come at direct or indirect expense of monthly renown generation (i.e. if you conquer everything yourself and your dynasts are direct vassals). Monthly renown will gradually grow, but how that compares to other strategies is the main measure of 'strategic' success.'
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
My view has long been that the strategic challenge metric of CK3 has been monthly dynastic renown, which serves as a proxy for how widespread and established your dynasty is outside of your realm. Most of the most 'overpowered' mechanics of the game come at direct or indirect expense of monthly renown generation (i.e. if you conquer everything yourself and your dynasts are direct vassals). Monthly renown will gradually grow, but how that compares to other strategies is the main measure of 'strategic' success.'
I don't know man, supporting your sons and nephews and other crowned kin against the Greatest of Khans probably is fun, but based on current player feedback of general AI inaction, supporting them in every succession crisis b/c the AI doesn't even station troops in the relevant duchy buildings sounds like it would get tedious fast.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It's sorta two different designs at odds and tension with each other.

CK3 is a character driven rpg-grand strategy game. Or is supposed to be. But after a certain point, managing characters barely mattered anymore.

Ideally, CK3 should be a grand strategy relationship management game. Meaning the grand strategy part of the game is about managing more and more different characters in a bigger part of the map.

Your grand strategy should be whether you can make so many different characters come together to support your dynasty for long term without it falling apart.
 
I mean, it fits the genre. The strategy part is in an awful state, but the genre when you have the map and move armies and build buildings like that is grand strategy indeed.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: