.png){kind=avatar}
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
1) Iron Century
2) CKII feels more feature complete than CKIII, not to mention Im a complete Roman nutcase and like the Imperial elections that were implemented in HF. No Roman flavour is a key issue for me in CKIII.
3) I don’t like the UI and the gloom, unlike the cheery parchments that I received detailing my removal of the enunch trait. If I wanted gloom, I would just read a newspaper irl.
4) I don’t get why a game so recent done with Holy Fury gets a sequel but us poor fans still have to wait for Victoria III, spare us
5) When I watched the livestreams etc, CKIII felt incredibly easy. There was no pushback from the AI etc, no real challenge once u got abit of money. Whilst this is also true in CKII I don’t think it’s to the same extent.
I do think by the end of the games cycle, CKIII will be better, the game has got an incredibly good base to start with. But as of now I think I have nostalgia for the potato characters in CKII.
Not Lambert, but Imperator atm doesn’t distinguish between ports with a natural Harbour and those who do not: the ability to build ports in every territory seems abit off as a result.
This would work very well with a trade update to the game, just to throw it out there *nudge nudge wink wink*
1. There is no good come-back from this one. Hands down your best argument. (I might be biased.)
2. I disagree. CK2 has more content, this isn't wrong, but I often felt like the content was put in the game in a poor way. You had a lot of ad-hoc content systems (see Societies, as a good example). These would be incredibly repetitive, often feel very limited, and just generally bloat the game in a poor way, rather than play well with the other systems in the game. That is not to say CK3 isn't clearly missing some things, like flavour for the ERE, but I assume that will come at some point.
3. You are of course free to subjectively think the CK2 UI is better looking, but I think there's no argument about the UX differences between the UI of CK2 and CK3. I have tried introducing people to both games, and boy is that a difference.
4. There is no sparing, there is only pain.
5. I don't think there's a notable difference in difficulty between CK2 and CK3, I think that's only a perception based on CK3 being a lot more an intuitive a game than CK2 ever was. I might be entirely wrong here though, but that has been my impression.
As for Imperator and ports. I find the "natural harbour" argument to be sort of a misnomer. If we wanted to, we could probably track down ports for almost every single territory in Greece. You have no idea how many arguments we've had on the CD team over what ports we should have, and where they should go. What you got was the result of us going "Alright, we shouldn't have more than X ports in any given province.", and tried to find what fit best from a game feel point of view. It has little to nothing to do with "natural harbours".
- 15
- 8
- 7
Not really, no. At least not one that I ever saw.
It has been something that has been discussed several times internally - all the way back to 1.1, if I recall correctly? Seeing as we worked a lot on ships, ship combat, major rivers, etc, it's just natural that it was discussed. I also recall that it came up as a discussion in 1.3, with even more major rivers and the mission trees. E.g having a port added to a territory as a reward was something we would want to do, when we first started looking at missions.
As it had been brought up so many times, and usually shot down because of technical reasons (see having to add port coordinates for every single territory by the sea, for example), I was surprised to see it in the Design Doc for the patch that would eventually end up becoming 2.0.
- 12
- 4