Playing as Mongols on their own without China does feel limited in scope

[EU3NOOB]

Why do you need to raid baghdad?

The Arabs following the Mongol Sack of Baghdad:

 

[WTH666444]

Really? Five years? I'm curious to know how many people were working on it for all that time, and if there was a point where they hired more people.

Who/What is peteoj?

Didn't find anything about team sizes at a glance, but I do think it useful to even just compare imaginativeness.
Yes, there'll be 12 (or 13, if 2026) years before a new entry in EU, and there were just 8 between the release of CK2 and CK3, and while I can judge the scope of EU4 expansions (everything after Leviathan, four years ago, was just mission trees), which I can't do to the same extent for CK2, the bigger problem just seems to be design philosophy.
You'll have trouble finding any system in EU5 that even resembles EU4, and what had CK3 changed, mechanically, over CK2 at release? Yes, culture, which previously had been non-existent, finally got some flavor, and religion became customizable, but what else? Lifestyle trees? Is that worth mentioning?

One of the more famous and visible forum members. By that fact, almost the spokesperson for the frustrated, "I actually want an RPG, not uninspired and non-symbiotic mechanics and event spam" crowd.

 

[toroltao]

Well I returned to CK3 after many years and tbh I'm still waiting for China to be released. I tried to play as Temujin in the 1178 start and it just felt wrong knowing that the game will change and be completely different for that side of the map by the end of the year. So I went and played Khazars instead. Like it's actually super offputting to me that there's an artificial cut off line even more now that I know it'll be gone very soon.

 

[child_of_air]

Didn't find anything about team sizes at a glance, but I do think it useful to even just compare imaginativeness.
Yes, there'll be 12 (or 13, if 2026) years before a new entry in EU, and there were just 8 between the release of CK2 and CK3, and while I can judge the scope of EU4 expansions (everything after Leviathan, four years ago, was just mission trees), which I can't do to the same extent for CK2, the bigger problem just seems to be design philosophy.
You'll have trouble finding any system in EU5 that even resembles EU4, and what had CK3 changed, mechanically, over CK2 at release? Yes, culture, which previously had been non-existent, finally got some flavor, and religion became customizable, but what else? Lifestyle trees? Is that worth mentioning?

One of the more famous and visible forum members. By that fact, almost the spokesperson for the frustrated, "I actually want an RPG, not uninspired and non-symbiotic mechanics and event spam" crowd.

I actually have never played EU4, so I cannot compare the two. But I see your point. You are in the minority in your view though, as most people complain that CK3 is too different from Ck2, and wasn't what they were expecting at all. I'm not ever exactly sure what they expected, but whatever it was, it wasn't CK3. Personally I think they both have good and bad things going for them.

I'm all for immersion. Isn't that the point of most RPGs? At present, and possibly always since it is unlikely to be fixed by now,, the AI is just too stupid to fully immerse me though. That is my number one complaint. But like most people, I have quite a few.