crusader kings 2 plus imperial decedance

Crusader kings 2 plus imperial decedance series#

Consequently, while there is still a bit too much of the 500-year-plan approach to the game, a ruler with traits unsuited to that plan can cause radical readjustments or at least long delays. Things that work off stress tend to be either bad for you, or very expensive (or both!) so stress-avoidance becomes a key concern. But (for example) an incompetent, wrathful ruler didn’t end up starting a bunch of wars (unless ‘start a bunch of wars’ was something the player had been doing for a while) he just did the slow work of claim-fabrication and crown-authority-raising that the player had already been doing less competently for a while, until the next, more skilled ruled.ĬK3‘s stress system is a brilliant modification to that system: forcing your ruler to act out of character for his or herself causes stress and stress can build up to some pretty nasty penalties. Sometimes the ruler executed this strategy more competently, sometimes less so. Sometimes they lack the ability to really think strategically at all!ĬK2 attempted this kind of setup, giving each character a set of skills and flaws which made them better at some things and worse at others, but since the player was still entirely in control, it led to the same kinds of problems as other games: a dynasty tended to look like a single hand executing on the same consistent strategy. And that’s simply not how states are actually led: states are led by people with their own goals (both for the system, but also within the system) and their own personal and strategic visions. Strategies are effortlessly coordinated over centuries, with resources and advantage carefully hoarded to support schemes which won’t bear fruit for generations. In so many strategy games, you play as the incorporeal embodied spirit of a state (as with all of the other Paradox titles) or its immortal god-king (for instance in the Civilization series), with little sense that these societies are actually run by different people with different aims, personalities, desires and proclivities.

Crusader kings 2 plus imperial decedance series#

The single best thing the Crusader Kings series has ever done is express the personal nature of rulership. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on twitter for updates as to new posts as well as my occasional ancient history, foreign policy or military history musings. Instead, I want to focus on CK3‘s big systems and how well they express fundamental realities about the societies being depicted, both because that is more interesting, but also because it is a fairer way to judge the game’s historicity, since big systems get more development time and attention than tiny details.Īs always, if you like what you are reading here, please share it if you really like it, you can support me on Patreon. I’m not going to get into small-picture nit-picking about the names and dates of individual techs or the starting castles of minor counts. So I want to draw out some elements of historical societies that I think CK3 expresses well, and some where I think it stumbles a bit. You are here for me to talk about the history behind the game. If you like the sort of games Paradox puts out, Crusader Kings III is probably the best they’ve done in delivering on a core concept.īut you aren’t here for my game reviews. So as a game, for just pure fun, it works. The addition of fully-body avatars (in place of portraits) for the characters and the new stress system move the actual gameplay and experience forward in important ways. As a game, Crusader Kings III is clearly a tremendous success and a marked improvement over its predecessor. Now from the beginning I should note that this isn’t a game review.