This game is fundamentally broken

[Azgabeth]

Maybe legitimacy will be looked over with Coronations.
Does seem like the obvious time to do it, as you introduce one more gain to a resource already always bumping up against its cap, to actually make coronations meaningful and not just a repetitive flavor event.

One can only hope…

I think they will be just an activity that give you some extra legitimacy.

Which is a shame because the coronation (more specifically the anointing as king) was THE MOMENT of a monarch’s legitimacy in medieval times. Once anointed a king cannot be unmade king.

Shakespear put it best “Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off an anointed king.”

When a usurper is anointed king, he cannot be unmade king, only through death.

It could be a good source of intrigue for the game but alas.

 

[Ral Rednaxela]

Well what was the benefit of introducing legitimacy when there is already prestige (besides being able to market it as a new feature)? Don't estates serve the same purpose buildings could or are meant to, why is there no interaction between them (again another silo). Why introduce accolades when Blademaster and the prowess trait chain (Formidable Banneret etc) are completely bare bones.

Why cant my Royal Court host feasts, weddings coronoations etc? Because its a DLC existing in a detached silo and those features were added in a different DLC.

We cant play as a baron or landed clergy but we can play landless? Do things things make sense or were they just flashy gimmicks pitched to a marketing dept?

There are so many half baked mechanics limping along side by side failing to interact with each other in a coherent or balanced manner.

Perhaps the parallel mechanics make it easier for the devs to add new content without disrupting the "balance" (lol) of the core game?

 

[InsidiousMage]

I wouldn't be surprised if the game being easy is an explicit demand from higher up.

I think it is far more likely that CK3 was intended to be the on ramp for Paradox games in general but the devs did a bad job on balancing the new player friendliness with the needs of more experienced and enfranchised players. On the one hand, CK generally is a good game for attracting new players because playing as characters and dynasties is probably a lot more broadly compelling than playing as states or nations but, ironically, also means its hard to streamline the complexity of GSG games. Like, I'd bet money one of the reasons HOI4 is Paradox's most played game is because the focus and mission trees both simplify the game's complexity while giving the player goals to work towards and telling them how to achieve those goals. You can't really do that in a character focused game because a CK style game is going to want to be more open ended and improvisational, which never going to be that new player friendly. This, to me anyway, feels like where CK3 went wrong because the more granular detail that is created by focusing on characters would lend itself really strongly to game aimed at more experienced players, rather than new players.

 

[Ral Rednaxela]

This is the only game I play where getting good makes the experience of playing it actively worse. After 1500 hours of EUIV I can say I understand the game, but I still feel like I can learn and improve without having to limit my choices. Stellaris similarly has unique and interesting playstyles that you can sink your teeth into after a long time playing. Hell, even a game like Baldur's Gate 3 rewards you for learning the weird parts of the game by throwing more challenging encounters at the player. Crusader Kings otoh seems uninterested in providing anything resembling a long term challenge. "You beat the game, it's over."

I second this. The first 100 in-years of your first playthrough are great, it feels like you've only scratched the surface of what this game has to offer. But since then, there's never been a point with CK3 where I can satisfyingly put it down. I get to that point with other Paradox games just fine. But with CK3, I just keep going back to it, scraping the bottom of the barrel, hoping for it to live up to it's potential, and I come away disappointed every time.

 

[Duchy-2]

I think it is far more likely that CK3 was intended to be the on ramp for Paradox games in general

Which would've been a very stupid decision. CK2 wasn't supposed to be an on ramp, it was still a strategy game at its core.
CK3, as you say, seems like a grand strategy made for people who don't like strategy. Fine... I guess the gamble paid off, looking at the sales, but it's a real shame that the franchise took such a U-turn, and I will probably never stop complaining about it.

 

[WTH666444]

Which would've been a very stupid decision. CK2 wasn't supposed to be an on ramp, it was still a strategy game at its core.
CK3, as you say, seems like a grand strategy made for people who don't like strategy. Fine... I guess the gamble paid off, looking at the sales, but it's a real shame that the franchise took such a U-turn, and I will probably never stop complaining about it.

But the strategy hasn't paid off, that's the whole point.

https://steamdb.info/charts/?compare=203770,236850,281990,394360,1158310

CK3 has achieved far less growth in consistent players with each subsequent release than more highly (forum-) lauded titles.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

After reading this, I've become so keen to play CK II again. I completely forgot what a great game it was. Especially with all the DLCs.

Man, I wish there was a CK 2 remaster. Give me the graphics from CK III and the gameplay from CK II.

I picked it up again about 2 weeks ago, initially just reflecting on what I like about both games (like a sort of science experiment, or research project).

Today, I'm about 50 years away from actually finishing my first playthrough to 1453. Ever. In either CK2 or Ck3.

That's the whopping 769 to 1453. [get the champagne ready]

In CK3, I've always abandoned runs because of lost interest/boredom.

CK2, it's almost always been because I realized I'm not quite where I want to be by a certain point (or early game-overs) and try to start over with something else.

I know people reading through my posts think I'm probably really negative on CK-3 but honestly there *are* lots of improvements that CK-3 has made—and those hit you in the gut when you start playing CK-2 again—but overall challenge is not one of them, and that seems to be what I have a lust for.

If I had an alchemy table and could combine ingredients I like from both games. . . *sigh* maybe CK4?

 

[WTH666444]

I picked it up again about 2 weeks ago, initially just reflecting on what I like about both games (like a sort of science experiment, or research project).

I'm about 50 years away from actually finishing my first playthrough to 1453. Ever. In either CK2 or Ck3.

That's the whopping 769 to 1453. [get the champagne ready]

In CK3, I've always abandoned runs because of lost interest/boredom.

CK2, it's almost always been because I realized I'm not quite where I want to be by a certain point (or early game-overs) and try to start over with something else.

I know people reading through my posts think I'm probably really negative on CK-3 but honestly there *are* lots of improvements that CK-3 has made—and those hit you in the gut when you start playing CK-2 again—but overall challenge is not one of them.

If I had an alchemy table and could combine ingredients I like from both games. . . *sigh* maybe CK4?

EU5 (mods). Trvst the plan.

 

[DaBombXXX]

This is a big reason why I don't really play CK3 anymore and I suspect it's behind the complaints about the game being "too easy." The game doesn't push back or resist. There are few, if any, obstacles to overcome that aren't just event choice A or B. Even the core obstacle - gavelkind partition succession - is easily gotten around by stacking opinion and gold. The systems in place simply do not facilitate organic challenges or obstacles.

If anything, learning the game and it's idiosyncrasies is the only challenge. Once you understand the mechanics, "you beat the game, it's over." Which is a shame, because this is the only game I play where getting good makes the experience of playing it actively worse. After 1500 hours of EUIV I can say I understand the game, but I still feel like I can learn and improve without having to limit my choices. Stellaris similarly has unique and interesting playstyles that you can sink your teeth into after a long time playing. Hell, even a game like Baldur's Gate 3 rewards you for learning the weird parts of the game by throwing more challenging encounters at the player. Crusader Kings otoh seems uninterested in providing anything resembling a long term challenge. "You beat the game, it's over."

This is actually such a valid point. CK3 is the only Paradox game that actively gets less fun once you learn the mechanics of the game. Inheritance is a problem for ten seconds until you realize the game gives you dozens of ways to completely avoid it, the devs even encourage some of the more cheesier ways. Once you understand MaA and the advantage system, you can cheese any battle because the AI is incapable of functioning in an efficient way. It's extremely easy to reach desired borders within 4 rulers and at that point, what else is there to do? The game after nearly 5 years still has barely any end game content. And with this upcoming DLC pack, it doesn't look like any of the expansions will expand gameplay at all, just gives you more ways to play. So, I can play in China, Japan and Korea for like 4 hours each until I get bored. Very Cool!

 

[Duchy-2]

But the strategy hasn't paid off, that's the whole point.

CK3 has achieved far less growth in consistent players with each subsequent release than more highly (forum-) lauded titles.

It had the biggest release of any of their games and it's on par, if not slightly more popular than their other games, excluding HOI4 which is in its own league. CK2's stats are slightly marred by it becoming free to play. CK3 has had more growth than EU4 or Stellaris, certainly more than CK2 when it was being sold. On paper, CK3 is an immense success. It's just that this financial success is at their old fanbase's expense.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

EU5 (mods). Trvst the plan.

Eh, I've never tried EU.

I like the dynasty aspect. Crusader Kings is AFAIK very unique in that regard. The fact that you could lose almost your whole realm, but your dynasty survives, and suddenly the game becomes a story of 'the great comeback.' Arrgghh I love it!!!

It had the biggest release of any of their games and it's on par, if not slightly more popular than their other games

Two words:

Mark eting.

I could turn this into a much bigger off topic rant but when Paradox went publicly traded, that was it. Check my signature, that about sums it up. Crusader Kings may not be dying in terms of sales but it's dying in spirit.

(I'm secretly hoping an old dev reads this and is like, "NO! No, it will NOT die! Not like this. This will NOT be how it ends!!!" and is suddenly inspired just to go into beast mode and make this game into what it could be---then again, I think that they're probably being kept on a tight creative leash because this *is* their big 'money maker')

(just tell me I'm dreaming, I'm gonna go finish this last 50 years of this CK2 playthrough)

 

[WTH666444]

It had the biggest release of any of their games and it's on par, if not slightly more popular than their other games, excluding HOI4 which is in its own league. CK2's stats are slightly marred by it becoming free to play. CK3 has had more growth than EU4 or Stellaris, certainly more than CK2 when it was being sold. On paper, CK3 is an immense success. It's just that this financial success is at their old fanbase's expense.

CK3, after the big launch (much of it attributable to lockdowns), was at around 20.000 concurrent players and today still is, outside of the expected DLC spike. Growth of a sum total of 0%. Maybe you could argue for a stabilization at 25.000, but that's only 25%, after almost five years.

Stellaris (10.000 to 20.000, 100%), EU4 (15.000 to 25.000, 66%), CK2 (3.000 to 10.000, 333%), HOI4 (15.000 to 70.000, 366%) have all recorded solid growth. What you're saying just doesn't add up whatsoever when you look at the numbers.

 

[Greifental]

Legitmacy, is well, how legally legitimate your holding of a title is

No. Only in name. There is no mechanic based on the fact that you hold a title rightfully.

it’s how your subjects see you.

That's it! It's purely a rulership measure. You lose legitimacy because of a plague? You must be a bad ruler punished by God. You have success in wars and give your ancestors proper burials? You must be a good ruler.

There is absolutely no need to split it per title.

 

[BaliorPal]

CK3, after the big launch (much of it attributable to lockdowns), was at around 20.000 concurrent players and today still is, outside of the expected DLC spike. Growth of a sum total of 0%. Maybe you could argue for a stabilization at 25.000, but that's only 25%, after almost five years.

Stellaris (10.000 to 20.000, 100%), EU4 (15.000 to 25.000, 66%), CK2 (3.000 to 10.000, 333%), HOI4 (15.000 to 70.000, 366%) have all recorded solid growth. What you're saying just doesn't add up whatsoever when you look at the numbers.

Now compare the numbers from the past five years. From 2015 to 2020, the number of active Steam users roughly doubled — and, miraculously, the player counts for Stellaris, HOI4 and EU4 also grew by about the same amount. From 2020 to 2025, the number of active Steam users increased by another 50%, but the growth for EU4, Stellaris, and CK3 during this period was only around 20% at most — if not close to 0%. Only HOI4 nearly doubled again. Out of these four games, only HOI4 is still actively growing.

 

[Duchy-2]

CK3, after the big launch (much of it attributable to lockdowns), was at around 20.000 concurrent players and today still is, outside of the expected DLC spike. Growth of a sum total of 0%. Maybe you could argue for a stabilization at 25.000, but that's only 25%, after almost five years.

Stellaris (10.000 to 20.000, 100%), EU4 (15.000 to 25.000, 66%), CK2 (3.000 to 10.000, 333%), HOI4 (15.000 to 70.000, 366%) have all recorded solid growth. What you're saying just doesn't add up whatsoever when you look at the numbers.

The lowest dip after launch and before the next update was 16 500. The next was 15 600. Next 20 000. Then 17 800. In September of 2023 it dipped to 19 200. Since then it has not once gone below 20 000 players, with the latest peak in September reaching 50 000. The game is doing just fine by all metrics but those which are not quantifiable. It's doing amazingly when compared to CK2 whose highest peak, not counting when it went free, was a measly 11 000.

CK3 might be slop, but slop sells... unfortunately.

 

[WTH666444]

Now compare the numbers from the past five years.

Excluding CK2, for obvious reasons, EU4 stabilized at 25.000 (with a skeleton crew, as the team shifted to Tinto in Barcelona), Stellaris went from 16.000 to 25.000 (56.5%), HOI4 from 45.000 to 70.000 (55%); which still looks better than CK3's 25%.

But I think this frame of reference totally misses the point. How does it make sense to compare the first five years of CK3's lifespan (which you would naturally, correctly, assume to be the most virile) to the last five of a game like EU4, which had started to receive ever less attention, being at the end of its lifecycle?
I think the more apt comparison is between the first five years of a particular title's release, which more or less amounts to my initial set of numbers.
Even then, though, I would feel obligated to qualify that as Paradox has gained more experience and funds, you would expect their first five years of each subsequent release to be better than the last one.

I would also note, as a matter of philosophy, that I am of the mind that absolute numbers bear less import than relative growth. I believe people's tastes are varied and diverse enough to afford just about every sort of genre the chance to crack AAA-numbers, so long as the public deems the game to be worth such attention and time.

All the more fascinating that even under your frame of reference, with all the critique I bear it, my initial observation still bears out.

 

[BaliorPal]

Excluding CK2, for obvious reasons, EU4 stabilized at 25.000 (with a skeleton crew, as the team shifted to Tinto in Barcelona), Stellaris went from 16.000 to 25.000 (56.5%), HOI4 from 45.000 to 70.000 (55%); which still looks better than CK3's 25%.

But I think this frame of reference totally misses the point. How does it make sense to compare the first five years of CK3's lifespan (which you would naturally, correctly, assume to be the most virile) to the last five of a game like EU4, which had started to receive ever less attention, being at the end of its lifecycle?
I think the more apt comparison is between the first five years of a particular title's release, which more or less amounts to my initial set of numbers.
Even then, though, I would feel obligated to qualify that as Paradox has gained more experience and funds, you would expect their first five years of each subsequent release to be better than the last one.

I would also note, as a matter of philosophy, that I am of the mind that absolute numbers bear less import than relative growth. I believe people's tastes are varied and diverse enough to afford just about every sort of genre the chance to crack AAA-numbers, so long as the public deems the game to be worth such attention and time.

All the more fascinating that even under your frame of reference, with all the critique I bear it, my initial observation still bears out.

Did you read my take on the number of active Steam users? Also, I genuinely don’t understand where you’re seeing any growth for Stellaris between 2020 and 2025.

 

[WTH666444]

The lowest dip after launch and before the next update was 16 500. The next was 15 600. Next 20 000. Then 17 800. In September of 2023 it dipped to 19 200. Since then it has not once gone below 20 000 players, with the latest peak in September reaching 50 000. The game is doing just fine by all metrics but those which are not quantifiable. It's doing amazingly when compared to CK2 whose highest peak, not counting when it went free, was a measly 11 000.

CK3 might be slop, but slop sells... unfortunately.

I don't think peaks are that important for a GSG which can be played all year-round. it shows the already acquired market, but the concurrent players after the peak show who actually is satisfied with the product as it is. In that sense, too, CK3 looks bad. HOI4 dipping from 90k to 65k (27%) is less drastic than CK3's 50k to 30k (40%). Same for EU4 (30 to 20, 33%).
Stellaris has even worse throughs, but it's a 4X before it's a GSG, as far as I'm concerned.

We do agree on the last point. I have high hopes for EU5 mods. Maybe it'll show CK3, too, that there is a market for challenge.

 

[WTH666444]

Did you read my take on the number of active Steam users? Also, I genuinely don’t understand where you’re seeing any growth for Stellaris between 2020 and 2025.

I hadn't seen your edit, no.
As I've noted in another reply, though, Stellaris is a 4X before it is a GSG, and EU4 has basically not been in active development for the past five years as resources were shifted to EU5. Those are big caveats.

I predict, even with an unparalleled push towards simulationism with EU5, which attracts a lesser audience than EU4's often wonky and exploitable mechanics, that EU5, if released not true to recent Paradox form (CS2, Vicky 3), will see 40-50k players easily.
And, if you then see EU4 and 5 as one graph and game and hit the upper end of my prediction, EU4 (.5) will have grown by 100% between 2020 and the (hopefully) 2025 release.
I know this is speculation, but what else is there for now?

I see the Stellaris growth on the graph I shared. Early 2020, after (/before) a peak, was 16.000, and currently it's 25.000.

 

[Voidian]

Excluding CK2, for obvious reasons, EU4 stabilized at 25.000 (with a skeleton crew, as the team shifted to Tinto in Barcelona), Stellaris went from 16.000 to 25.000 (56.5%), HOI4 from 45.000 to 70.000 (55%); which still looks better than CK3's 25%.

But I think this frame of reference totally misses the point. How does it make sense to compare the first five years of CK3's lifespan (which you would naturally, correctly, assume to be the most virile) to the last five of a game like EU4, which had started to receive ever less attention, being at the end of its lifecycle?
I think the more apt comparison is between the first five years of a particular title's release, which more or less amounts to my initial set of numbers.
Even then, though, I would feel obligated to qualify that as Paradox has gained more experience and funds, you would expect their first five years of each subsequent release to be better than the last one.

I would also note, as a matter of philosophy, that I am of the mind that absolute numbers bear less import than relative growth. I believe people's tastes are varied and diverse enough to afford just about every sort of genre the chance to crack AAA-numbers, so long as the public deems the game to be worth such attention and time.

All the more fascinating that even under your frame of reference, with all the critique I bear it, my initial observation still bears out.

Yeah, I don't know how people could see it any different.
As I've posted before

Not the best selling, the most successful one.

It had an 800% player growth over time while other titles like CK2 and EU4 had only "400%", so it clearly shows that whatever they've been doing after the game launched was very well aligned with their customers, it also happens to have the best total numbers of concurrent players as well. From a player's perspective CK3 had the best paradox launch, might have had the best selling game release for them as well, but whatever happened after that was a disaster.

"in terms of growth, for paradox if you discount Vic3 and Imperator.

Each new game grew the company's playerbase further.

CK2 started with nothing, stabilized around 1k and grew over the years towards 4k average players, a 400% growth.
https://steamcharts.com/app/203770

EU4 took the torch at around 3 or 4k stable and grew it's audience towards 15k average players, around 400% growth as well.
https://steamcharts.com/app/236850

HoI4, their most successful game, went from 5-6k stable to 35~40k, almost a 800% change.
https://steamcharts.com/app/394360

Stellaris, a game infamous for being broken and unplayable for over half it's life, remade into a different game at least 3 times (and 4.0 is promising a complete overhaul of the entire game yet again) went from an unstable 6k average to 15k+, over a 200% change.
https://steamcharts.com/app/281990

Meanwhile CK3 have remained around 13k since launch, at most you can say it might have gained 1k since T&T, very few of the DLCs were any good, most activelly make the game worse, the only REAL good one was RTP and the numbers show, finally making the average player numbers change with a lasting effect since launch, it has been running over 16k for almost half a year now, it's the first, and only, true "hit" DLC they've released.

CK3 had a stellar launch, but whatever possessed paradox since then was not well received by anyone until now.

Vic3 have followed the same disastrous DLC model, mind you, and it was killing the game, the military overhaul over a year ago did more to the game than most of the DLCs, and I only Sphere of Influence was truly a great addition to the game."

Nobody would contest CK3 had a very successful launch, in contrast with the failure of Imperator, one came out barebones looking like EU4 did, on launch, but a decade later, while CK3 at least seemed like it had some effort put into the game, it had a bunch of placeholders but the base of most of the game was there, everyone saw potential and eagerly awaited the future content.

Which never came.

The changed systems were mostly changed for worse, CK3 does a few extra things CK2 doesn't do at all, like traveling and culture mechanics, which are great, but CK2 still does a bunch of things CK3 doesn't do at all, like societies, coronations, papal sucession, trade routes, trade zones, and pretty much every actual government type except feudal christian up until recent years.

I mean, some people had the gall to claim in CK2 you could only play feudal but in CK3 all of the same governments were available from the start, if that was true, then wth was RtP supposed to be about? Why did they have to actually make clan mechanics in LoP? What is Khans of the Steppe even about?

CK3 seems like it only finally -started- it's development since RtP, everything else has been a failure and the numbers, and reviews, show, I'm fairly sure the higherups never noticed because the concerns of the community were being dismissed and not properly delivered to them, while they made the change from single sales to chapters and they had a lot of sales from people thinking the Ck3 dev cycle would look like what it did for Ck2, I personally know of half a dozen people and all of them bought the chapter 1 on launch, and all of them felt like they got scammed out of their money, Chapter 2 didn't do any better either, T&T was only "good" in comparisson to everything else, meaning, it's the best of the worst DLCs paradox ever made, I have a feeling it's going to start looking worse & worse over time now that paradox is finally delivering actual content with great hits like RtP Khans of the Steppe and what it looks like we're going to see in All Under Heaven, even Khans of the Steppe which is supposed to be a "smaller" DLC is far more impactful and important than anything released before RtP.

Now, to avoid being overly negative, praise where it's due, one of the main complaints CK3 players had, since launch, was that after years of development the game was not improved at all, and all DLCs felt like they added nothing to the game, if a player accidentally started a game forgetting to turn on all DLC there was a good chance he wouldn't even notice they were turned off.

This can't be said for RtP and Khans of the Steppe, so we're finally seeing a change in direction, we're finally seeing actual content being developed, which is great, one of the (possibly?) three greatest flaws of the game is being addressed, lack of content, bad AI, horrible balance/mechanics, I was honestly giving up on the game altogether as I wasn't even seeing an effort for years in any of these 3 areas, now it seems like paradox is starting to move, if only they could at least try to address the other issues...

PS: I also have a feeling the season packs have masked the failure of their disastrous changes to DLC policies to the higher ups, and it might mislead them again, as people are already fed up and have lost faith in the game, even if they start releasing great DLCs, it's going to take time for people to trust them enough to start buying these packs and show the results in actual sales.