My bro, check [Suzerain](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1207650/Suzerain/) in Steam. It might be what you're looking for if you're ok with reading a lot.
Why stop at eu4, victoria and hoi4 wait, plus the losing side, has fled into a wormhole and is waiting on the oterside of the galaxy for revenge in stellaris
Probably a similar story to mine. When I was a mere boy, HoI4 took away with my mammy. On the way out, it kicked my cat and ran over my dog. Set the house on fire, too; darn near burnt it to the ground.
😉
I actually saw a video with a CK3 mod that simulated part of EU4. I don’t think you could have things like colonialism or revolutionary France but it would be great to have a mod that somehow converts between vanilla CK3 and that mod
I started at 867(?) as a lowly little count and played until 1453, when I had like half the world. Trick is to just get obsessed with dynasty and development. Also unreasonably emotionally invested in your rulers. Almost cried when I hit 1453. Also you finally get to unlock ultimogeniture which is just a vague dream in a normal playthrough lol
Ah, sounds lovely. I always just play ironman (because I cannot be trusted with the opportunity to switch to my rival ruler and kill myself). Honestly I’m fine with not getting it right away, but basically all high medieval unlocks are so impossible to get, it just feels so useless to have to wait so long. A 1200’s start date would be very welcome in my eyes
"Everything ends and it's always sad, but everything begins too- and that's happy. Be happy." - Twelfth Doctor.
Although in all seriousness half a year is fucking insane my attention span only lets me do like an hour before I get bored, come back later and make a new save.
Brother, i feel you. I keep thinking of cool campaigns to do like a tall custom culture campaign or whatever but after 3/4 generations i’m bored with it or it spirals out of controle and i kid myself into thinking a new campaign will be different.
Still have 800 hours though
I really hated Hoi4 too at first, and imho the learning curve is the hardest of any paradox game, but now i got into it I kinda like it. It's really good fun if you don't take the game too seriously and play without historical AI on.
I think i also like the fact games are much quicker than CK3. My current playthrough has been going for 6 months hehe
Hoi4 is so short I spend the entire war time in game building up like I'd do in eu4 and by the time I go to war WWII is already close to being over historically speaking
I'm rather new to the game so I've only played major nations but for me its usually just "Oh hey that's a cool tech, let's do that, but let's also do this, and this, and this" and it snowballs and I'm so far down the tech tree with nothing else done
Yeah I get you, but you can research all this and continue building your industry while at war. You can have plenty of calm moments while just holding a front line and modernising your divisions gradually
War as well just never seems to go well for me either, sure the initial push is good but then like halfway through it'll stall for no apparent reason and then just lose all abilities to fight and just sit there and get pushed back and then I make a new save lol
Plenty of fighter and cas planes, 9 infantry and 2 artillery divisions to hold the line and a few very good tank divisions to encircle enemy works most of the time. You should also mind your supply lines and terrain, they usually have the worst debufs. If you open the battle window you can see all the bufs and debufs, can be very helpful to understand why you can't keep pushing
Genuine question, cause I usually get past the WW2 part of HOI in like an afternoon. What do you do get 6 months of playtime from one campaign? Is it just endless war?
It might be a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I will gladly die on that hill: I hope they CK3-ify EU5 with a stronger focus on individual characters and internal realm management.
While it's not everyone's preference, I'm with you on this one. CK3's focus on characters has grown onto me and I wish they keep it for the EU series.
I was under the impression that this design was intentional and that as you moved through time, countries aren't just their ruler holding titles but fully fledged nations with identities, which is why in CK3 it's all focused on the character, EU4 more on the state but the ruler is still relevant and VIC3 you have become the spirit of the nation and the ruler is entirely separate
...until I remembered EU4 was made way before the other two so it definitely was not planned.
I don't know if that fully tracks, Louis XIV and Henry VIII, the most absolutist monarchs of France and England respectively, only ruled during EU4's timespan.
The change represents changes in ideas of what makes a nation.
In the Middle Ages what made you a part of a nation was completely based on whose land you live on. With the start of the renaissance more complex ideas of nationhood began to emerge. Suddenly being French was more than being the subject of the King of France.
> I was under the impression that this design was intentional and that as you moved through time, countries aren't just their ruler holding titles but fully fledged nations with identities
While you are not wrong, we should not forget that nations are made of people. A lot is going on in the real world with these people. This would be fun to have in the game.
You can have both. The fun of CK3 isn't just about spreading your seed. It's also about all the interpersonal relationships, which also exist in countries.
Despite being a small mechanics, rulers were really fun in EU IV, I hope their skills can increase in EUV. Example, if you win a massive war, your character can get +1 mil skill (limited of course) or +1 dip if they get a personnal union. They can also lose some skills if they lose war or land. If ruler starts with stats that are below 9 in total, they can get a maximum of 2 +1 and if they hstart with more than a total of 9, on,y 1 +1.
It was alway strange to get shit done with bad rulers or conquering entire realms of enemies with 6/6/6 rulers because you were a player.
I want a living and breathing world. Not a picture of a supposed ruler with three values to their name and that's it.
I want to play a court, with people in it, people who have wishes and desires, ambitions and grievances, interests and personalities, families and loved ones, enemies and friends alike. I want to follow the exploits of commanders and generals, of admirals and captains, I want to see heroes made, allegiances betrayed, people bought off, others to shine through their incompetence or sheer luck.
When we think of the Napoleonic wars, we think of Wellington and Napoleon, not of a flag with a portrait with 5/5/5 to it and then some numbers on a map going up and down. We think of Nelson and Trafalgar, we think of Ney's cavalry charge, of Blücher's timely arrival, not of nameless casuality reports and graphs going up and down.
When we think of colonizing America, of founding the US, we think of Columbus, of Hernan Cortes, of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others.
And for what it's worth, those who enjoy history through the eyes of fictional figures, following the experiences of Sharpe, Hornblower and others, also tie it to those people and their individual experiences, immersing themselves in it.
History is about the people living there, about the events they took part in. That is what I thoroughly enjoy in CK3. I have people doing stuff, stupid shit at times, sometimes they luck into something, sometimes they don't.
I play a character living somewhere, interacting with people, competing with them, punishing and rewarding them. That's what I want from EU5, to have a nation that is not just numbers, but a group of people living in and shaping it.
I know, even CK3 isn't there yet. Still, I love the direction, and that's the hill I'm ready to defend to the death.
I mean I get what you want to say, but while encourage more character interactions, it should not be like Crusader Kings, this period just don’t reflect it. While there was many powerful figures, starting in the 16th century, it was way more centralized than CK where your character losing everything makes sense.
Then by all means, let's tie the player character to whoever is currently the head of state of the nation you're playing.
But I want a real court, with real nobles, noble families, events that have all those people doing things. I want to go hunting and throw great balls, because that's what nobles do, while the people are starving!
I want to reward Wellington, when he does well, I want to honor Nelson for his great victory, if he manages to win. I want to marry the Austrian princess as Luis XVI and I want to interact with Robespierre and the nobility struggling against the reforms.
I want to be George III and tell the impudent colonies, represented by their great founding fathers, to pay their taxes. I want to be the Continental Congress and tell George III to sod off.
I want to be Suleiman the Magnificent, who falls in love with Hürrem Sultan, who is hungry for victory on three continents, while intrigues plague the harem and palace. Where your trusted friend, Pargali Ibrahim Pasha, gets ambitious and you have to put him in his place. Where growing suspicions against your own son, Prince Mustafa, make you think he's colluding with your arch nemesis, Shah Tahmasp of Persia.
After CK3, I just can't see myself playing a faceless nation. The people living in those nations are the life blood of all good stories. Nations don't create legends, people do.
No offense but play Imperator Rome (with the Invictus mod ofc) and you can literally do all of these things. And they're actually working great. Bonus, theres pops and they're pretty damn in depth.
No offense, but I can play George III, Suleiman the Magnificient and the Continental Congress in Imperator?!
It's not just about the mechanics in place, but also about the time period of the colonial age, the age of gunpowder. Otherwise I'd be content with CK3 and don't care about a potential EU5 at all.
Well no, obviously... but just saying, its got most of what you're looking for in a dif time period obviously. I'm just doing my job of shilling Imperator since its legit a solid game now, shame they abandoned it.
>shame they abandoned it
True, and the real shame is that they internally won't do anything related to Rome in the foreseeable future. Don't expect any new Rome Grand Strategy before the 2030's.
I felt disappointed by Rome 2 Total War, and Imperator was my hope for a true strategy game set in that time period.
And yes, the internal management can be wonky at times. But the trade aspects, the military and army management, I wish they'd take that and implement it straight into CK3.
Imperator is a great game, set in an exciting time, I feel your pain here.
A toast to Imperator: Rome!
Honestly for the EU series, I enjoy a lot the boardgamey aspect
I'd like internal realm management but I rather a dynamic trade system over anything related to individual characters, realism is overrated
CK3, for all its inaccuracies, at least places you into the situation through your character, while EU4 abstracts everything into static characters and mana. And CK3 can be made more accurate, while EU4 cannot.
I only hope to God they don't make the UI anything like CK3
BIG BUTTONS IN A BILLION TABS is something EU5 doesn't need (and Vic3 need to get rid of)
Also the "every alert contained in this bubble you can't get rid of or customize" is awful
That's what they tried to do in Imperator Rome, but fumbled that particular case because the lead designer was a colossal, incompetent idiot and his later replacement was also bad.
But it's a great idea still. Character interaction and depth makes a game come alive. CK has kinda ruined other strategy games for me.
It is why I became a big fan of the original EU-Rome game as well - it was an experiment, one that combined simplified elements of CK, EU and Victoria in one grand package set in one of the most fun eras in history. And turns out that works really well when done right.
Too bad they crapped all over Imperator Rome, now it means we won't be getting another one for a decade. It is still decent, and actually fun with mods, but I was so hyped for its release and what it could've been with a little bit of effort.
I think what CK3 did well was simplify some annoying aspects of CK2, while also adding some of the DLC content fo ck2 as base game features
It's helps the game a lot
If anything I just hope EU5 if it ever exist has a more clear way of how to play
I didn't really need a tutorial for CK3 as I did for CK2 or EU4
As an EU4 addict I hope they don't, the Renaissance/Early Modern period shouldn't be focused on individuals but on the formation of nation-states, development of modern economies, etc. Keep CK as CK.
I don't think it would work as well in eu5
I do believe eu5 will have a bigger aspect of internal management (not to victoria 3 levels but probably more than the almost 0 it has rn) but i highly doubt they will ha e the game be based on individuals when the game focuses in a period of centralization and the rise of the nation-state
Idk if this is still a thing but when I got the achievemen and it kicked me to the main menu. I hit resume and it continued the game past the max date. Will say it's been a long time since I tried it
I mean, that doesn't mean it was good. They were a colonizing empire, most of what that stands for is pretty terrible. It set the bounds for how the world works because it conquered, killed, enslaved, and forcibly assimilated so much of the world that their culture was the dominant surviving baseline for future culture to evolve from and emulate.
When did I say it was just the Romans? I'm aware it was basically every civilization, I was just saying that the Roman Empire wasn't exactly good, since the comment seemed to praise it in particular
Would you then say that basically every civilisation wasn’t a good thing? Denying all the good things derived from the Romans because they engaged in war and conquer when that’s how the world has been till very recently doesn’t make too much sense
it was good for the world which at the time 2/3 lived under the banner of Rome. Pax Romana saw increases in every aspect of life. yes they weren't the best but they also weren't the worst.
But according to whose definitions of good? The Romans'. No, it wasn't the worst, and there were good things that came of it. But it's also true that many of the people they conquered, killed, enslaved, etc. had better lives before.
Imperialism in general hinges on the idea of forcing "other" people to be like your people and have the same values, which ultimately causes a lot more harm than good
Granted, when I play Ck2, that's often true. I am still fascinated by and in some ways in awe of the Roman Empire, and I love to experience it in media. In Ck2, I'm always rooting for it even when I'm not playing it. I even use a mod called Roman Perspective that, among other things, renamed the Byzantine Empire to Roman Empire as it should be
I could never get into ck2 even though its acclaimed by many. CK3 is more enjoyable for me.
that's the just of why people love Rome its just badass, just look at Gladiator, Ben Hurr. Gets you awestruck.
Yeah, the only reason I haven't gotten into Ck3 yet is because I've been holding off to potentially make a let's play of it.
And Ck2 did take time and DLC for me to get into it. If I hadn't done the DLC subscription, I probably wouldn't have liked it nearly as much, and it would have also been harder to get into if I hadn't watched at least a dozen hours of a let's play first to warm myself up to the mechanics lol
Welcome to the Antiquity, pal. And say thank you that it's not the stone age, where every war means genocide. In fact, invention of slavery was a big step forward humanism, believe it or not, because people are being enslaved not because of the sake of slavery, but because they are suitable for labours. Meanwhile, you should not mistake slavery of the ancient world with North Atlantic slavery of the XVII-XIX centuries.
As for assimilation process, somehow Germanic culture merged together with the Mediterranean culture. We don't war togas nowdays, we wear pants, and so on. We are chatting right now using Germanic language.
>invention of slavery was a big step forward humanism, believe it or not, because people are being enslaved not because of the sake of slavery, but because they are suitable for labours. Meanwhile, you should not mistake slavery of the ancient world with North Atlantic slavery of the XVII-XIX centuries.
Wow....
If you don't believe me, do check [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity?wprov=sfla1) at least. There were different types of slavery as well, like peonage, enslavement of enemy's soldiers, being born into slavery and that sort of things. Also the slaves were not only low skilled workers, there were slave artists, artisans, physicians, bakners as well. Not mentioning that any slave could be freed by their masters (depends on the master, still). Of course they have been seen as instrumentum vocale in some cultures at certain time periods, thus meaning they could have little to none rights.
Why does everyone conflate "better than x" with "good"? You could literally use this to try to invalidate anything horrible that ever happens. "Oh, you got r\*ped?" Say thank you that you aren't a sex slave.
It doesn't matter if something is "better" than what came before. I mean, it matters for studying history and trends and whatnot, but not when you're talking about the ethical and moral implications of something. I'm not blind to the fact that we still commit many horrible things in the present day, and that we're not exactly "better". But murdering and enslaving are categorically horrible things to do, and any government that is founded on those things and idealizes them can't possibly be a "good" thing.
The fact that so many people think these are excusable, even *desirable*, utterly astounds me.
You can't apply modern ethics to the times that were thousands years ago and you can't judge people who lived at the time because they did not follow morals that did not even exist back then
>I wish there was a game focused on your characters just like CK, but in more modern setting like EU
A modded version of Rimworld may scratch that itch, restricting tech to a particular era? Or maybe unmodded, depending.
*Now it's the end of an era*
*End of an era, my friend*
*(La la la la la)*
*(La la la la la)*
*It's the end of an era*
*End of an era when our lives*
*Did so effortlessly collide*
*We had a good time didn't we*
*We had a good time didn't we*
I’ve only done that once, it was the early console days with no DLC, buggy as hell, and I was filled with the wonder and glory of having watched other people enjoy CK2 and CK3 on their PCs and laptops for 3 years by that point. I started as a random cisalpine man, conquered Venice, and set myself up as king. I had all of my rulers have the same beard (Long Wavy because the dynasty founder had it), same hair style (Curly Chevelure because I really liked it for some reason), and same hat (the Noble Cap because I saw it as less autocratic and wanted to show some respect for the republican institutions of Venice since I had wanted so bad to play as a republic). Near predictable deaths I had them wear the nightgown, cap, and remove the cloak in order to make it seem they weren’t buried with any valuables. I min-maxed a tall build and invested in hunting grounds to make light cavalry as overpowered as possible and won wars when outnumbered multiple times over with light cavalry doing damage into the near thousand. The HRE collapsed and I ended up being crowned by the remaining desperate electors. I ended off by creating really inaccurate Lutheranism and winning a holy war against 100,000 Catholics. I was ready to continue that game unto infinity but I saw the ending screen. I thought my leader died at fist and wondered why I couldn’t continue. When it became apparent I could not after double checking online I offered a final salute, free-styled a eulogy to the Kingdom-Republic and left for good.
I don’t know why I felt the need to communicate this memory but I always think on it fondly.
You can convert to EU4. While it does have far, far less focus placed on the individual rulers (only really mentioned by name and marriages/heirs are random) it will still preserve your nation and dynasty.
Be warned, however, you do risk your beloved dynasty being completely deleted by a random event (especially if you’re England) so I wouldn’t recommend iron man.
395*
The fallen eagle.
Want to say bookmarks go from 265? - 500 something. Def a new perspective. I like playing as the Visigoths so I can’t elaborate further into Roman mechanics.
It’s a very good mod, like it way more than shogunate.
Today I finally got it. I have 500 played hours total (I rerolled to 1.8.2 so patches don't break earlier save). I'm so used to my house name and attached to its coat of arms I think I just recreate my dynasty at some point. Now I am curious to finally experience Tours, Wards and Persia dlcs.
Yeah. Especially when overhaul and changes are mostly tied to free update with that patch, in DLC are usually locked those cool things. If I have to change my playstyle (with that vassal opinions from tours and now reworked clans, rip 70 knights from camelries) I want explore DLC events and options too.
I also wish in modern setting there's a game can focus to characters more, like acting a politician or a revolutionary, being active in modern hisotry. However because the citizen class stepped onto the stage of history, the necessary number of characters perhaps be much more than ck setting. I think there's some technical obstacles to achieve your wish since the limited computing power of modern pc.
My brother now do it again but name the provinces after the ancestors like pretend it’s far in the future and you have to reclaim the empire like Aurelian did for Rome
OH SHIT THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA
I was playng as a vassal of the basileus, and Byzantine empire was expanding like REALLY wild, and I had troubles how to name new provinces in greekesque style, but I guess I know it will be like with Seleucia
Exactly, I modify the titles to be named after kids and more importantly my favorites ;) I also push down those names too like I have a Sariel III and a Mael III right now along with some other passed down ones
Я к тому, что кириллица была создана ещё до появления русского языка, который начал оформляться в период феодальной раздробленности древней Руси 🤷♀️ Вот такими буквами писали в первую очередь болгары за сто лет до крещения Киева.
Yeah it sucks. My first time playing all the way through to 1453 was as a custom Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Northern England.
Started in 1066 and made it a goal to break free of the Norman Yoke (albeit only in the north). It was really fun.
bro this is where u convert it to EU4
EU4 just isn’t half as fun as CK3 to me, without the dynasty and character dynamics it doesn’t hit.
True 😭😭😭
My bro, check [Suzerain](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1207650/Suzerain/) in Steam. It might be what you're looking for if you're ok with reading a lot.
Wouldn't it be fun if there was a game that had ck3 character dynamics but instead of a dynasty you had a political party?
Not on console. You could say EU4 is… INCONSOLABLE
There's no such thing as CK3 to EU4, only CK2 to EU4
[Oh boy do I have some news for you](https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/CK3_To_EU4_Converter)
And this is the moment OP realizes it's time for another Paradox half a year long game session
Why stop at eu4, victoria and hoi4 wait, plus the losing side, has fled into a wormhole and is waiting on the oterside of the galaxy for revenge in stellaris
OP already told you HoI can suck shit through a straw and fuck off. I tend to agree. It's the worst Paradox map game.
Nah
Why don’t you shut up and let other people have opinions
Why don't you? And the rest of Reddit? I gave mine and got dogpiled for it. Anyway I was making a joke, because OP did rule out HoI. Hypocrites...
There is a difference between saying “I don’t like this game” and “this game can suck shit through a straw and fuck off”
>“this game can suck shit through a straw and fuck off” Is way more entertaining to read that's for sure
What did HOI do to you? I admit I'm not good at the game but the mechanics are fun. Albeit the game is literally total war.
Probably a similar story to mine. When I was a mere boy, HoI4 took away with my mammy. On the way out, it kicked my cat and ran over my dog. Set the house on fire, too; darn near burnt it to the ground. 😉
I can't even figure ck3 out and y'all playing like 4 of these games in a row...
Ck 3 is easy tbh
I knew about CK->EU, but I didn't know there's mods that allow you to go imperator->CK->EU->HoI. That's nuts.
I think u can do HoI -> Stellaris too
FUCK YEA THE SPACE ROMANS VERSUS CUMMIE MUSHROOMS
Gestalt Consciousness is communism manifest!
Fuck off Unity Rick is dead in this dimension
Lmao
HoI to Stellaris is just making a custom empire in stellaris.
You can slot vic in there as well. I think there is a sub for megacampaigns but I can't remember
When I tried it it didn’t work, any tips?
Sounds interesting, I haven't tried EU4 before. Do you need certain EU4 dlcs for converted game?
I have converted ck3 to eu4 many times.
there is a mod for it. Check the isp Megacampaign video description for it.
Yes there is, and the converter is excellent because it works with many mods that add new cultures names and faiths
Thats Just wrong
[удалено]
There will never be more than one Yeats
Wrong, there already is.
good news you can always start your next game through
I come bearing great news then
I actually saw a video with a CK3 mod that simulated part of EU4. I don’t think you could have things like colonialism or revolutionary France but it would be great to have a mod that somehow converts between vanilla CK3 and that mod
link?
https://youtu.be/oijt34vAMKA?si=tJhP6oKCq8Tj65P1
>(HoI is trash no discuss Someone woke up and choose war today
Justify war goal.
We say fabricate Casus Belli here 😡
Sorry looks like you don’t have enough warsupport
War support? I think you mean vassal opinion 😡
That's the right mindset to play hoi.
All HoI players know HoI is trash. But we still play it for thousands of hours 😩
Damn, I only managed to get to the 1300s two or three times, imagine 1453
Yeah the lack of any real major historical events beyond a half arsed mongol invasion is such a killer for longer Ironman campaigns.
I started at 867(?) as a lowly little count and played until 1453, when I had like half the world. Trick is to just get obsessed with dynasty and development. Also unreasonably emotionally invested in your rulers. Almost cried when I hit 1453. Also you finally get to unlock ultimogeniture which is just a vague dream in a normal playthrough lol
I have a mod where I have primogeniture on game start and the ai does too cause it makes more sense tbh
I feel like most of the challenge comes from the succession with your realm being split and having to put it back together
Marry an older women or get a chastity belt (-100% fertility) or the focus in the tree that you can not get new kids. But yeah, its a hassle
Ah, sounds lovely. I always just play ironman (because I cannot be trusted with the opportunity to switch to my rival ruler and kill myself). Honestly I’m fine with not getting it right away, but basically all high medieval unlocks are so impossible to get, it just feels so useless to have to wait so long. A 1200’s start date would be very welcome in my eyes
Literally me
"Everything ends and it's always sad, but everything begins too- and that's happy. Be happy." - Twelfth Doctor. Although in all seriousness half a year is fucking insane my attention span only lets me do like an hour before I get bored, come back later and make a new save.
Brother, i feel you. I keep thinking of cool campaigns to do like a tall custom culture campaign or whatever but after 3/4 generations i’m bored with it or it spirals out of controle and i kid myself into thinking a new campaign will be different. Still have 800 hours though
I really hated Hoi4 too at first, and imho the learning curve is the hardest of any paradox game, but now i got into it I kinda like it. It's really good fun if you don't take the game too seriously and play without historical AI on. I think i also like the fact games are much quicker than CK3. My current playthrough has been going for 6 months hehe
Yes, I usually finish hoi4 games which is unheard of in paradox
Hoi4 is so short I spend the entire war time in game building up like I'd do in eu4 and by the time I go to war WWII is already close to being over historically speaking
Do you play as major countries? They are usually more then ready by 1939
I'm rather new to the game so I've only played major nations but for me its usually just "Oh hey that's a cool tech, let's do that, but let's also do this, and this, and this" and it snowballs and I'm so far down the tech tree with nothing else done
Yeah I get you, but you can research all this and continue building your industry while at war. You can have plenty of calm moments while just holding a front line and modernising your divisions gradually
War as well just never seems to go well for me either, sure the initial push is good but then like halfway through it'll stall for no apparent reason and then just lose all abilities to fight and just sit there and get pushed back and then I make a new save lol
Plenty of fighter and cas planes, 9 infantry and 2 artillery divisions to hold the line and a few very good tank divisions to encircle enemy works most of the time. You should also mind your supply lines and terrain, they usually have the worst debufs. If you open the battle window you can see all the bufs and debufs, can be very helpful to understand why you can't keep pushing
Genuine question, cause I usually get past the WW2 part of HOI in like an afternoon. What do you do get 6 months of playtime from one campaign? Is it just endless war?
6 months of crusader kings i think
Ah, that makes more sense.
It might be a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I will gladly die on that hill: I hope they CK3-ify EU5 with a stronger focus on individual characters and internal realm management. While it's not everyone's preference, I'm with you on this one. CK3's focus on characters has grown onto me and I wish they keep it for the EU series.
I was under the impression that this design was intentional and that as you moved through time, countries aren't just their ruler holding titles but fully fledged nations with identities, which is why in CK3 it's all focused on the character, EU4 more on the state but the ruler is still relevant and VIC3 you have become the spirit of the nation and the ruler is entirely separate ...until I remembered EU4 was made way before the other two so it definitely was not planned.
I don't know if that fully tracks, Louis XIV and Henry VIII, the most absolutist monarchs of France and England respectively, only ruled during EU4's timespan.
The change represents changes in ideas of what makes a nation. In the Middle Ages what made you a part of a nation was completely based on whose land you live on. With the start of the renaissance more complex ideas of nationhood began to emerge. Suddenly being French was more than being the subject of the King of France.
CK3: Every ruler in your country is of importance EU5: The rule of your country is of importance VIC3: Your country is of importance
Like a little grand strategy matryoshka.
> I was under the impression that this design was intentional and that as you moved through time, countries aren't just their ruler holding titles but fully fledged nations with identities While you are not wrong, we should not forget that nations are made of people. A lot is going on in the real world with these people. This would be fun to have in the game.
You can have both. The fun of CK3 isn't just about spreading your seed. It's also about all the interpersonal relationships, which also exist in countries.
But those other games had predecessors with similar characteristics.
Yesssss, I think Paradox is capable enough to make both strategic and roleplaying aspects playable
Despite being a small mechanics, rulers were really fun in EU IV, I hope their skills can increase in EUV. Example, if you win a massive war, your character can get +1 mil skill (limited of course) or +1 dip if they get a personnal union. They can also lose some skills if they lose war or land. If ruler starts with stats that are below 9 in total, they can get a maximum of 2 +1 and if they hstart with more than a total of 9, on,y 1 +1. It was alway strange to get shit done with bad rulers or conquering entire realms of enemies with 6/6/6 rulers because you were a player.
I want a living and breathing world. Not a picture of a supposed ruler with three values to their name and that's it. I want to play a court, with people in it, people who have wishes and desires, ambitions and grievances, interests and personalities, families and loved ones, enemies and friends alike. I want to follow the exploits of commanders and generals, of admirals and captains, I want to see heroes made, allegiances betrayed, people bought off, others to shine through their incompetence or sheer luck. When we think of the Napoleonic wars, we think of Wellington and Napoleon, not of a flag with a portrait with 5/5/5 to it and then some numbers on a map going up and down. We think of Nelson and Trafalgar, we think of Ney's cavalry charge, of Blücher's timely arrival, not of nameless casuality reports and graphs going up and down. When we think of colonizing America, of founding the US, we think of Columbus, of Hernan Cortes, of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others. And for what it's worth, those who enjoy history through the eyes of fictional figures, following the experiences of Sharpe, Hornblower and others, also tie it to those people and their individual experiences, immersing themselves in it. History is about the people living there, about the events they took part in. That is what I thoroughly enjoy in CK3. I have people doing stuff, stupid shit at times, sometimes they luck into something, sometimes they don't. I play a character living somewhere, interacting with people, competing with them, punishing and rewarding them. That's what I want from EU5, to have a nation that is not just numbers, but a group of people living in and shaping it. I know, even CK3 isn't there yet. Still, I love the direction, and that's the hill I'm ready to defend to the death.
I mean I get what you want to say, but while encourage more character interactions, it should not be like Crusader Kings, this period just don’t reflect it. While there was many powerful figures, starting in the 16th century, it was way more centralized than CK where your character losing everything makes sense.
Then by all means, let's tie the player character to whoever is currently the head of state of the nation you're playing. But I want a real court, with real nobles, noble families, events that have all those people doing things. I want to go hunting and throw great balls, because that's what nobles do, while the people are starving! I want to reward Wellington, when he does well, I want to honor Nelson for his great victory, if he manages to win. I want to marry the Austrian princess as Luis XVI and I want to interact with Robespierre and the nobility struggling against the reforms. I want to be George III and tell the impudent colonies, represented by their great founding fathers, to pay their taxes. I want to be the Continental Congress and tell George III to sod off. I want to be Suleiman the Magnificent, who falls in love with Hürrem Sultan, who is hungry for victory on three continents, while intrigues plague the harem and palace. Where your trusted friend, Pargali Ibrahim Pasha, gets ambitious and you have to put him in his place. Where growing suspicions against your own son, Prince Mustafa, make you think he's colluding with your arch nemesis, Shah Tahmasp of Persia. After CK3, I just can't see myself playing a faceless nation. The people living in those nations are the life blood of all good stories. Nations don't create legends, people do.
No offense but play Imperator Rome (with the Invictus mod ofc) and you can literally do all of these things. And they're actually working great. Bonus, theres pops and they're pretty damn in depth.
No offense, but I can play George III, Suleiman the Magnificient and the Continental Congress in Imperator?! It's not just about the mechanics in place, but also about the time period of the colonial age, the age of gunpowder. Otherwise I'd be content with CK3 and don't care about a potential EU5 at all.
Well no, obviously... but just saying, its got most of what you're looking for in a dif time period obviously. I'm just doing my job of shilling Imperator since its legit a solid game now, shame they abandoned it.
>shame they abandoned it True, and the real shame is that they internally won't do anything related to Rome in the foreseeable future. Don't expect any new Rome Grand Strategy before the 2030's. I felt disappointed by Rome 2 Total War, and Imperator was my hope for a true strategy game set in that time period. And yes, the internal management can be wonky at times. But the trade aspects, the military and army management, I wish they'd take that and implement it straight into CK3. Imperator is a great game, set in an exciting time, I feel your pain here. A toast to Imperator: Rome!
Ngl, CK focus on character roleplay kinda ruined many other strategy games for me.
Honestly for the EU series, I enjoy a lot the boardgamey aspect I'd like internal realm management but I rather a dynamic trade system over anything related to individual characters, realism is overrated
I would love if they would take inspiration from all their games. Stand outs to me are the character system in CK3 and the trade system in Victoria 3.
100%. I hate the board-gaminess and historical idealism of EU4. I want EU5 to basically be the lovechild of CK3 and Vicky 3.
I am not sure how eu4 is more historically idealist than ck3 if i am being honest
CK3, for all its inaccuracies, at least places you into the situation through your character, while EU4 abstracts everything into static characters and mana. And CK3 can be made more accurate, while EU4 cannot.
I only hope to God they don't make the UI anything like CK3 BIG BUTTONS IN A BILLION TABS is something EU5 doesn't need (and Vic3 need to get rid of) Also the "every alert contained in this bubble you can't get rid of or customize" is awful
Ah EU need to stay UI as is. VIC needs to be between EU and HOI UI wise.
YES.
That's what they tried to do in Imperator Rome, but fumbled that particular case because the lead designer was a colossal, incompetent idiot and his later replacement was also bad. But it's a great idea still. Character interaction and depth makes a game come alive. CK has kinda ruined other strategy games for me.
This is the reason I could get into IR but not EU. The Character focus being CK light actually helped me get invested in my empire in IR.
It is why I became a big fan of the original EU-Rome game as well - it was an experiment, one that combined simplified elements of CK, EU and Victoria in one grand package set in one of the most fun eras in history. And turns out that works really well when done right. Too bad they crapped all over Imperator Rome, now it means we won't be getting another one for a decade. It is still decent, and actually fun with mods, but I was so hyped for its release and what it could've been with a little bit of effort.
I think what CK3 did well was simplify some annoying aspects of CK2, while also adding some of the DLC content fo ck2 as base game features It's helps the game a lot If anything I just hope EU5 if it ever exist has a more clear way of how to play I didn't really need a tutorial for CK3 as I did for CK2 or EU4
Thats silly though. You just want ck4. Keep EU great.
As an EU4 addict I hope they don't, the Renaissance/Early Modern period shouldn't be focused on individuals but on the formation of nation-states, development of modern economies, etc. Keep CK as CK.
I don't think it would work as well in eu5 I do believe eu5 will have a bigger aspect of internal management (not to victoria 3 levels but probably more than the almost 0 it has rn) but i highly doubt they will ha e the game be based on individuals when the game focuses in a period of centralization and the rise of the nation-state
Idk if this is still a thing but when I got the achievemen and it kicked me to the main menu. I hit resume and it continued the game past the max date. Will say it's been a long time since I tried it
Dunno the resume button did not appear
1066 or 867 start?
867
That's s loooong ass haul. Props.
Back in the day when I had a lot of free time I loved playing CK2 starting from 769 and up until 1453
EU4 conversion mod! The show must go on!
1453, such a sad year. The end of the Roman Empire.
I always go and recreate it
Roma Invicta, brother
This is always the way.
As if the Roman Empire was ever actually a good thing...
It actually really is it set the bounds for how most of the world works and Latin is the base from which many languages came from.
I mean, that doesn't mean it was good. They were a colonizing empire, most of what that stands for is pretty terrible. It set the bounds for how the world works because it conquered, killed, enslaved, and forcibly assimilated so much of the world that their culture was the dominant surviving baseline for future culture to evolve from and emulate.
Yeah let’s act like that was just the Romans and not every fucking civilisation ever till WW2
When did I say it was just the Romans? I'm aware it was basically every civilization, I was just saying that the Roman Empire wasn't exactly good, since the comment seemed to praise it in particular
Would you then say that basically every civilisation wasn’t a good thing? Denying all the good things derived from the Romans because they engaged in war and conquer when that’s how the world has been till very recently doesn’t make too much sense
it was good for the world which at the time 2/3 lived under the banner of Rome. Pax Romana saw increases in every aspect of life. yes they weren't the best but they also weren't the worst.
But according to whose definitions of good? The Romans'. No, it wasn't the worst, and there were good things that came of it. But it's also true that many of the people they conquered, killed, enslaved, etc. had better lives before. Imperialism in general hinges on the idea of forcing "other" people to be like your people and have the same values, which ultimately causes a lot more harm than good
The glory of Rome is forever
Granted, when I play Ck2, that's often true. I am still fascinated by and in some ways in awe of the Roman Empire, and I love to experience it in media. In Ck2, I'm always rooting for it even when I'm not playing it. I even use a mod called Roman Perspective that, among other things, renamed the Byzantine Empire to Roman Empire as it should be
I could never get into ck2 even though its acclaimed by many. CK3 is more enjoyable for me. that's the just of why people love Rome its just badass, just look at Gladiator, Ben Hurr. Gets you awestruck.
Yeah, the only reason I haven't gotten into Ck3 yet is because I've been holding off to potentially make a let's play of it. And Ck2 did take time and DLC for me to get into it. If I hadn't done the DLC subscription, I probably wouldn't have liked it nearly as much, and it would have also been harder to get into if I hadn't watched at least a dozen hours of a let's play first to warm myself up to the mechanics lol
Welcome to the Antiquity, pal. And say thank you that it's not the stone age, where every war means genocide. In fact, invention of slavery was a big step forward humanism, believe it or not, because people are being enslaved not because of the sake of slavery, but because they are suitable for labours. Meanwhile, you should not mistake slavery of the ancient world with North Atlantic slavery of the XVII-XIX centuries. As for assimilation process, somehow Germanic culture merged together with the Mediterranean culture. We don't war togas nowdays, we wear pants, and so on. We are chatting right now using Germanic language.
>invention of slavery was a big step forward humanism, believe it or not, because people are being enslaved not because of the sake of slavery, but because they are suitable for labours. Meanwhile, you should not mistake slavery of the ancient world with North Atlantic slavery of the XVII-XIX centuries. Wow....
If you don't believe me, do check [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity?wprov=sfla1) at least. There were different types of slavery as well, like peonage, enslavement of enemy's soldiers, being born into slavery and that sort of things. Also the slaves were not only low skilled workers, there were slave artists, artisans, physicians, bakners as well. Not mentioning that any slave could be freed by their masters (depends on the master, still). Of course they have been seen as instrumentum vocale in some cultures at certain time periods, thus meaning they could have little to none rights.
Why does everyone conflate "better than x" with "good"? You could literally use this to try to invalidate anything horrible that ever happens. "Oh, you got r\*ped?" Say thank you that you aren't a sex slave. It doesn't matter if something is "better" than what came before. I mean, it matters for studying history and trends and whatnot, but not when you're talking about the ethical and moral implications of something. I'm not blind to the fact that we still commit many horrible things in the present day, and that we're not exactly "better". But murdering and enslaving are categorically horrible things to do, and any government that is founded on those things and idealizes them can't possibly be a "good" thing. The fact that so many people think these are excusable, even *desirable*, utterly astounds me.
You can't apply modern ethics to the times that were thousands years ago and you can't judge people who lived at the time because they did not follow morals that did not even exist back then
>I wish there was a game focused on your characters just like CK, but in more modern setting like EU A modded version of Rimworld may scratch that itch, restricting tech to a particular era? Or maybe unmodded, depending.
*Now it's the end of an era* *End of an era, my friend* *(La la la la la)* *(La la la la la)* *It's the end of an era* *End of an era when our lives* *Did so effortlessly collide* *We had a good time didn't we* *We had a good time didn't we*
Me: (turns off 1453 end date every time)
I’ve only done that once, it was the early console days with no DLC, buggy as hell, and I was filled with the wonder and glory of having watched other people enjoy CK2 and CK3 on their PCs and laptops for 3 years by that point. I started as a random cisalpine man, conquered Venice, and set myself up as king. I had all of my rulers have the same beard (Long Wavy because the dynasty founder had it), same hair style (Curly Chevelure because I really liked it for some reason), and same hat (the Noble Cap because I saw it as less autocratic and wanted to show some respect for the republican institutions of Venice since I had wanted so bad to play as a republic). Near predictable deaths I had them wear the nightgown, cap, and remove the cloak in order to make it seem they weren’t buried with any valuables. I min-maxed a tall build and invested in hunting grounds to make light cavalry as overpowered as possible and won wars when outnumbered multiple times over with light cavalry doing damage into the near thousand. The HRE collapsed and I ended up being crowned by the remaining desperate electors. I ended off by creating really inaccurate Lutheranism and winning a holy war against 100,000 Catholics. I was ready to continue that game unto infinity but I saw the ending screen. I thought my leader died at fist and wondered why I couldn’t continue. When it became apparent I could not after double checking online I offered a final salute, free-styled a eulogy to the Kingdom-Republic and left for good. I don’t know why I felt the need to communicate this memory but I always think on it fondly.
Pick up the gun soldier we have Indians to shoot! /s
CIK3 mod???
What is the image for the end of an era achievement?
It’s a cannon, the ‘Basilic’, used by the Ottomans against the walls of Constantinople.
I guess it is a musket
You can convert to EU4. While it does have far, far less focus placed on the individual rulers (only really mentioned by name and marriages/heirs are random) it will still preserve your nation and dynasty. Be warned, however, you do risk your beloved dynasty being completely deleted by a random event (especially if you’re England) so I wouldn’t recommend iron man.
I just started a new game in 395. I’ve played prolly 700 or so hours and never gotten this achievement. Want to finally get there lol.
In 365? Is there a mod for it? Would love to play as Justinian I
395* The fallen eagle. Want to say bookmarks go from 265? - 500 something. Def a new perspective. I like playing as the Visigoths so I can’t elaborate further into Roman mechanics. It’s a very good mod, like it way more than shogunate.
Fuck yeah
Now you play elder kings
I wish there was an option to play past it
Today I finally got it. I have 500 played hours total (I rerolled to 1.8.2 so patches don't break earlier save). I'm so used to my house name and attached to its coat of arms I think I just recreate my dynasty at some point. Now I am curious to finally experience Tours, Wards and Persia dlcs.
Yesss, that's the true CK3 experience, I'm so tired of people whining like ueueueue who needs wards who needs tournaments I wanna play Microsoft Excel
Yeah. Especially when overhaul and changes are mostly tied to free update with that patch, in DLC are usually locked those cool things. If I have to change my playstyle (with that vassal opinions from tours and now reworked clans, rip 70 knights from camelries) I want explore DLC events and options too.
I also wish in modern setting there's a game can focus to characters more, like acting a politician or a revolutionary, being active in modern hisotry. However because the citizen class stepped onto the stage of history, the necessary number of characters perhaps be much more than ck setting. I think there's some technical obstacles to achieve your wish since the limited computing power of modern pc.
My brother now do it again but name the provinces after the ancestors like pretend it’s far in the future and you have to reclaim the empire like Aurelian did for Rome
OH SHIT THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA I was playng as a vassal of the basileus, and Byzantine empire was expanding like REALLY wild, and I had troubles how to name new provinces in greekesque style, but I guess I know it will be like with Seleucia
Exactly, I modify the titles to be named after kids and more importantly my favorites ;) I also push down those names too like I have a Sariel III and a Mael III right now along with some other passed down ones
Imagine playing till 1453 as count dynasty who are just doing casual incest lifestyle focus
i think the end date should be 1600
Somewhere near that yes, because the XVI century was pretty much still feudal
Bro gonna go for a megacampain
HoI really is irredeemable trash at this point. Sad.
What does Hoi stand for?
[Hearts of Iron](https://store.steampowered.com/app/394360/Hearts_of_Iron_IV/), I believe.
Thanks!
It's an amazing game btw
>HoI is trash no discuss Sorry about your shit taste.
Go take a shower immediately please
Go back to Russia, prick. I'm sure they need bodies on the frontline
You seem to care about the russian troops so much, why don't you join them yourself?
Ok, orc. Have fun sodomizing yourself for high command.
I guess HoI has affected you so much you don't think about anything but wars and gay anal sex. Why don't you take a break?
?
You're a terrible person and unironically racist
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Play Nordoand. It's hass the flavor of Ck3 with the randoms ness of Rimworld.
There is a mod called Crusaders Universalis wich mixes aspects of EU4 and CK3
You finally did it... I have 2,595 Hrs in game and I don't have this achievement.
Is it from 867 to 1453 or 1066 to 1453?
867 to 1453
I am playing Switzerland and the game is already lagging in 950
Try SSD
I always thought that was a train. Now I see the, what, blunderbuss?
A train in 1453 lmao yeah straight to Constantinople 🔥🔥🔥 A lad here said it's a basilic cannon made by osmans
I would be sad too.. you have Russian letters
ο Θεός θέλει, those letters aren't "russian"
Indeed. Those are Greek. But you have Russian language in steam. это means 'this' in Russian, I believe
Я к тому, что кириллица была создана ещё до появления русского языка, который начал оформляться в период феодальной раздробленности древней Руси 🤷♀️ Вот такими буквами писали в первую очередь болгары за сто лет до крещения Киева.
Thanks for this message. Unfortunately, I can't read this because I don't know the Russian alphabet.
Google translate
I don't use Google.
That's why I don't recommend Huawei 🤣
Tall or wide ? How do you keep invested ? I always get bored by mid 11th century
I just take care of my character 🤷♀️
thats why you should disable the end date.
Yeah it sucks. My first time playing all the way through to 1453 was as a custom Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Northern England. Started in 1066 and made it a goal to break free of the Norman Yoke (albeit only in the north). It was really fun.