4 ms·

Collections: Teaching Paradox, Crusader Kings III, Part I: Making It Personal

68 points by DMell 4y ago

podiki 4y ago
Thanks for this, really great and engaging dive into the mechanics and design of CK3.
hourago 4y ago
> Crusader Kings III doesn’t actually feature any states in the narrow sense of the word; none of these rulers have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force I find this kind of adaptations incredible interesting. Most games look at the past with modern eyes and create duplicates of all institutions from Judges to teachers. But it is not as simple as that. I hope to see more this kind of approach in more movies and other mass media, even if it could be more historical accurate.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > none of these rulers have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force It's a bit of a weird thing to say. It's an internal definition i.e. legitimacy is defined by the sovereign. There's no external force that grants legitimacy on a state or its actions; within a state, the sovereign (even popular ones) will attack uses of force that it hasn't sanctioned.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Legality is defined by the sovereign. Legitimacy is by definition external to the ruler - i.e. by society or at least some part of it (the "elites"). If the society accepts that some use of force by entities other than the nominal ruler is also legitimate - for example, if the nobles can have private armies and deploy them against each other in some conditions - then the ruler does not have monopoly on the use of force.
SleepilyLimping 4y ago
Man, I wish I could get into 4X games. Stellaris and CKII are games I've tried to put "tutorial time" into, but they don't catch as much as Factorio or Rimworld.
- 0x457 4y ago
  I find Stellaris 100% easier to grasp than any other Paradox game. I think it's due to a fact in other Paradox games you essentially start in a middle of someone else's save. In Stellaris, for the most part, everyone starts at the same time. Just start as a fanatic militarist monarch, and you're playing a nearly regular strategy at this point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- xani_ 4y ago
  I would say CK3 have much better new player introduction (I also bounced of CK2), but if you bounced off Stellaris, which is the easiest of Paradox titles to get into, you'd probably have same problem. But you can always wait for free week I guess
johnyzee 4y ago
I love the idea of the Paradox grand strategy games, but they seem to me to be almost gratuitously complex. Everything has so. many. parameters. In turn, this seems to make the games (1) require learning a lot of details that are 'coincidental complexity' rather than 'essential complexity' (like a staggering number of unit types and combinations), serving only the purpose of having a (superficially) richer backdrop, and (2) involve a lot of micro-management at the most miniscule levels, again seemingly just to have those things in there, not necessarily because they make a big difference in how the game plays out. This has kept me from jumping in. From my point of view, I would love it if there would be simple way to dumb down some of the systems, have the game handle some of the micro-management, possibly remove some of the nuance of units, traits, and so on. I know it exists in the games to some extent, but from what I have seen enabling these things in itself required quite a bit of work. Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough. So for now I am resorted to watching youtube playthroughs with some fascination. Maybe one day when I have a few weeks of time to spare, I will try my hand at one of these games.
- ajudson 4y ago
  It's still fun even if you aren't hyper optimizing and playing perfectly with every mechanic
- yelskcol 4y ago
  I think Paradox games tend to scare people away by leading them to think that all of the minutiae of their mechanics matter far more than they actually do. It seems incredibly complicated at a glance, but as you say a lot of the details might as well be inconsequential unless you're somebody obsessed with min-maxing your game experience.
  - d-trieu 4y ago
    Agreed, I also think fans of Paradox games are doing the games a disservice by encouraging people to watch long youtube tutorials before they start instead of just jumping in and experiencing the mechanics. The important ones will become obvious after some time.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
Crusader Kings 2 were the only single-player game I could play, where AI wouldn’t be immersion-breaking reminder that I am simply doing another version of computer work. If anyone has any interest in gaming whatsoever you owe to yourself to check out that (or Crusader Kings 3) masterpiece. It’s also the closest I’ve ever seen the game come to a book reading experience. It usually delivers the same sensation as reading some Crusade’s chronicles. Incredible, really. Also, incredibly, it’s a game where winning doesn’t matter. Not in a GTA-like sandbox where you aimlessly wander. In CK2/CK3 you are trying to fulfill your dynansty’s destiny. And sometimes you’ll conquer Europe, but sometimes you’ll rise and fall and fizzle on the outskirts of the civilized world. The story is always there.
- vintermann 4y ago
  I liked many things about CKII, but I think the expansions very quickly began to jump the shark, and they sometimes sacrificed historical accuracy to cater to popular perceptions. For instance, Paradox knew well that the kind of "haw-haw let's sacrifice our enemies to Odin" paganism that people wanted didn't resemble those historical belief systems very much, so they came up with the option of establishing "reformed pagan" faiths which just happened to be what people wanted. And don't even get me started on secret societies. You could play without those expansions, but then you felt like you were playing a long-abandoned game.

68 points by DMell 4y ago

Thanks for this, really great and engaging dive into the mechanics and design of CK3.

> Crusader Kings III doesn’t actually feature any states in the narrow sense of the word; none of these rulers have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force I find this kind of adaptations incredible interesting. Most games look at the past with modern eyes and create duplicates of all institutions from Judges to teachers. But it is not as simple as that. I hope to see more this kind of approach in more movies and other mass media, even if it could be more historical accurate.

pessimizer 4y ago
> none of these rulers have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force It's a bit of a weird thing to say. It's an internal definition i.e. legitimacy is defined by the sovereign. There's no external force that grants legitimacy on a state or its actions; within a state, the sovereign (even popular ones) will attack uses of force that it hasn't sanctioned.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Legality is defined by the sovereign. Legitimacy is by definition external to the ruler - i.e. by society or at least some part of it (the "elites"). If the society accepts that some use of force by entities other than the nominal ruler is also legitimate - for example, if the nobles can have private armies and deploy them against each other in some conditions - then the ruler does not have monopoly on the use of force.

SleepilyLimping 4y ago

Man, I wish I could get into 4X games. Stellaris and CKII are games I've tried to put "tutorial time" into, but they don't catch as much as Factorio or Rimworld.

0x457 4y ago
I find Stellaris 100% easier to grasp than any other Paradox game. I think it's due to a fact in other Paradox games you essentially start in a middle of someone else's save. In Stellaris, for the most part, everyone starts at the same time. Just start as a fanatic militarist monarch, and you're playing a nearly regular strategy at this point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
xani_ 4y ago
I would say CK3 have much better new player introduction (I also bounced of CK2), but if you bounced off Stellaris, which is the easiest of Paradox titles to get into, you'd probably have same problem. But you can always wait for free week I guess

johnyzee 4y ago

I love the idea of the Paradox grand strategy games, but they seem to me to be almost gratuitously complex. Everything has so. many. parameters. In turn, this seems to make the games (1) require learning a lot of details that are 'coincidental complexity' rather than 'essential complexity' (like a staggering number of unit types and combinations), serving only the purpose of having a (superficially) richer backdrop, and (2) involve a lot of micro-management at the most miniscule levels, again seemingly just to have those things in there, not necessarily because they make a big difference in how the game plays out. This has kept me from jumping in. From my point of view, I would love it if there would be simple way to dumb down some of the systems, have the game handle some of the micro-management, possibly remove some of the nuance of units, traits, and so on. I know it exists in the games to some extent, but from what I have seen enabling these things in itself required quite a bit of work. Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough. So for now I am resorted to watching youtube playthroughs with some fascination. Maybe one day when I have a few weeks of time to spare, I will try my hand at one of these games.

ajudson 4y ago
It's still fun even if you aren't hyper optimizing and playing perfectly with every mechanic
yelskcol 4y ago
I think Paradox games tend to scare people away by leading them to think that all of the minutiae of their mechanics matter far more than they actually do. It seems incredibly complicated at a glance, but as you say a lot of the details might as well be inconsequential unless you're somebody obsessed with min-maxing your game experience.
- d-trieu 4y ago
  Agreed, I also think fans of Paradox games are doing the games a disservice by encouraging people to watch long youtube tutorials before they start instead of just jumping in and experiencing the mechanics. The important ones will become obvious after some time.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

Crusader Kings 2 were the only single-player game I could play, where AI wouldn’t be immersion-breaking reminder that I am simply doing another version of computer work. If anyone has any interest in gaming whatsoever you owe to yourself to check out that (or Crusader Kings 3) masterpiece. It’s also the closest I’ve ever seen the game come to a book reading experience. It usually delivers the same sensation as reading some Crusade’s chronicles. Incredible, really. Also, incredibly, it’s a game where winning doesn’t matter. Not in a GTA-like sandbox where you aimlessly wander. In CK2/CK3 you are trying to fulfill your dynansty’s destiny. And sometimes you’ll conquer Europe, but sometimes you’ll rise and fall and fizzle on the outskirts of the civilized world. The story is always there.

vintermann 4y ago
I liked many things about CKII, but I think the expansions very quickly began to jump the shark, and they sometimes sacrificed historical accuracy to cater to popular perceptions. For instance, Paradox knew well that the kind of "haw-haw let's sacrifice our enemies to Odin" paganism that people wanted didn't resemble those historical belief systems very much, so they came up with the option of establishing "reformed pagan" faiths which just happened to be what people wanted. And don't even get me started on secret societies. You could play without those expansions, but then you felt like you were playing a long-abandoned game.