I'm sure others have posted things about this already, but laws and claimants are two major sticking points for me right now that's really hampering my experience of the game. Most other things in the game I'm thoroughly enjoying and honestly having a really good time with, but laws and claimants are two I really got a bone to pick with. To start with, the laws.
Crown Authority and Obligations
To start with, the laws: It seems like CK3 has reverted back to the CK2 pre-Conclave system of laws, with Crown Authority and old Obligation laws. I'm really not sure why this decision was made in terms of designing the laws (and I certainly hope the reason is NOT so another Conclave DLC can be released, because that would be pretty scummy), but I'm really strongly disliking the way this works.
What made CK2 Conclave work so well was the fact that it split up all the rights of vassals and obligations up into individual laws that could be changed in exchange for certain benefits. It wasn't perfect, but it is honestly preferable to exchanging EVERYTHING for vassal opinion. Increasing your Crown Authority is a natural progression for you as a ruler, since it gives you levies, taxes, control over your vassals, aka basically everything you need to like, be a good ruler. Since it affects your army size, whether or not you have good Crown Authority can easily determine whether or not a stronger ruler is willing to attack you.
But since you have to exchange vassal opinion for these things, it means you're just stuck with a -35 malus with your vassals like... just by default. It's the same deal with Obligation laws: naturally you're going to be increasing tax and levies so you can like... have the money to do things and the army to not die, but increasing it means huge maluses. These two things combined means that every time a succession happens, I have to spend like 10 or 20 years with diplo focus just so I can keep my realm from falling apart, because every succession leaves me with all of my vassals hating my guts. And if I get unlucky enough to have a ruler die right after another, or have a child succeed? I end up with everyone having -100 opinion and an immediate faction revolt.
One thing I DO like about this new system is being able to negotiate individual feudal contracts, but if doing so is only going to lead to increased penalties, what's the point? And why have every vassal right be tied to Crown Authority, so even if you only want SOME rights, you have to get ALL of them and take the penalty? I just don't see why this couldn't have been designed as well or better than Conclave's system.
Claimants
Another thing I kind of dislike is the way claimants work. In CK2, only claimants of your dynasty or claimants who are your vassals will be your vassal once you press their claims, or else they'll end up independent rulers, but in CK3, no matter who they are, if you press their claim, they end up your vassal. Now, that seems like a pretty normal thing, it might even seem streamlined as compared to before, as you no longer have to have a spare holding to give them in order to make them your vassal.
But in practice, this leads to things getting extremely messy. The AI is constantly pressing claims on everything on everyone, leading to blobbing of unprecedented proportions as compared to CK2's. It also means you can basically never have a moment of rest, because the moment you show weakness, someone immediately declares on you for claims. It almost feels like I never get the chance to just chill and manage domestic affairs, because someone's always trying to beat me up for my lunch money.
It also makes blobbing as a player feel unprecedentedly easy too, since it's way too easy to get claimants and whatnot. This is a refreshing change from CK2's trap of "no CBs", like with Orthodox and Miaphysites being unable to request claims and whatnot, but... man, I dunno. I feel like the claimant thing really needs to be rebalanced. I feel like this could be made to work, and work better than in CK2, but as it is right now, warfare and diplomacy is extremely messy, and it feels like I'm constantly just fighting off another King or their Duke, even while I'm on the same side of a war as their King.
Conclusion
CK3 has been a really interesting experience, and I genuinely do enjoy a lot of potential I'm seeing here. With individual feudal contracts, with improved warfare systems and diplomacies, but I feel like there's so much that needs to be ironed out and balanced, or redone and improved. The laws in particular I strongly dislike because it just punishes the player for progressing the way the player is intended to progress. I feel like a Conclave-style system of laws, or at least something based on the same premise, would work a lot better and make the game a lot more enjoyable. And the way claimants work makes the game feel too blobby and too easily-blobby for both AI and player, making every game, even for Christians, feel like playing as Tribal Pagans in CK2. Rebalancing the way claimants are handled without making them punishing to use will definitely make the game feel less... EU4, in terms of how hard you blob.
Crown Authority and Obligations
To start with, the laws: It seems like CK3 has reverted back to the CK2 pre-Conclave system of laws, with Crown Authority and old Obligation laws. I'm really not sure why this decision was made in terms of designing the laws (and I certainly hope the reason is NOT so another Conclave DLC can be released, because that would be pretty scummy), but I'm really strongly disliking the way this works.
What made CK2 Conclave work so well was the fact that it split up all the rights of vassals and obligations up into individual laws that could be changed in exchange for certain benefits. It wasn't perfect, but it is honestly preferable to exchanging EVERYTHING for vassal opinion. Increasing your Crown Authority is a natural progression for you as a ruler, since it gives you levies, taxes, control over your vassals, aka basically everything you need to like, be a good ruler. Since it affects your army size, whether or not you have good Crown Authority can easily determine whether or not a stronger ruler is willing to attack you.
But since you have to exchange vassal opinion for these things, it means you're just stuck with a -35 malus with your vassals like... just by default. It's the same deal with Obligation laws: naturally you're going to be increasing tax and levies so you can like... have the money to do things and the army to not die, but increasing it means huge maluses. These two things combined means that every time a succession happens, I have to spend like 10 or 20 years with diplo focus just so I can keep my realm from falling apart, because every succession leaves me with all of my vassals hating my guts. And if I get unlucky enough to have a ruler die right after another, or have a child succeed? I end up with everyone having -100 opinion and an immediate faction revolt.
One thing I DO like about this new system is being able to negotiate individual feudal contracts, but if doing so is only going to lead to increased penalties, what's the point? And why have every vassal right be tied to Crown Authority, so even if you only want SOME rights, you have to get ALL of them and take the penalty? I just don't see why this couldn't have been designed as well or better than Conclave's system.
Claimants
Another thing I kind of dislike is the way claimants work. In CK2, only claimants of your dynasty or claimants who are your vassals will be your vassal once you press their claims, or else they'll end up independent rulers, but in CK3, no matter who they are, if you press their claim, they end up your vassal. Now, that seems like a pretty normal thing, it might even seem streamlined as compared to before, as you no longer have to have a spare holding to give them in order to make them your vassal.
But in practice, this leads to things getting extremely messy. The AI is constantly pressing claims on everything on everyone, leading to blobbing of unprecedented proportions as compared to CK2's. It also means you can basically never have a moment of rest, because the moment you show weakness, someone immediately declares on you for claims. It almost feels like I never get the chance to just chill and manage domestic affairs, because someone's always trying to beat me up for my lunch money.
It also makes blobbing as a player feel unprecedentedly easy too, since it's way too easy to get claimants and whatnot. This is a refreshing change from CK2's trap of "no CBs", like with Orthodox and Miaphysites being unable to request claims and whatnot, but... man, I dunno. I feel like the claimant thing really needs to be rebalanced. I feel like this could be made to work, and work better than in CK2, but as it is right now, warfare and diplomacy is extremely messy, and it feels like I'm constantly just fighting off another King or their Duke, even while I'm on the same side of a war as their King.
Conclusion
CK3 has been a really interesting experience, and I genuinely do enjoy a lot of potential I'm seeing here. With individual feudal contracts, with improved warfare systems and diplomacies, but I feel like there's so much that needs to be ironed out and balanced, or redone and improved. The laws in particular I strongly dislike because it just punishes the player for progressing the way the player is intended to progress. I feel like a Conclave-style system of laws, or at least something based on the same premise, would work a lot better and make the game a lot more enjoyable. And the way claimants work makes the game feel too blobby and too easily-blobby for both AI and player, making every game, even for Christians, feel like playing as Tribal Pagans in CK2. Rebalancing the way claimants are handled without making them punishing to use will definitely make the game feel less... EU4, in terms of how hard you blob.
Upvote
0