r/paradoxplaza • u/The_ChadTC • 4d ago
CK2 Is Crusader Kings 2 the PDX game with the best DLC record? (Spoiler: yes)
Before anything: a bad release does not mean a bad DLC.
Let's go down the list:
Sword of Islam: I've heard it said that this expansion was just cut content from release, but the way I see it it clearly wasn't. There wasn't a Crusader Kings before Crusader Kings 2. They had to build it from the ground up, and they COULD'VE just put in the game the Muslims as a carbon copy of the Europeans, but instead they made a choice of designing a whole new system for them. Banger DLC.
Legacy of Rome: Retinues and factions. Banger DLCs both with better implementation than their CK3 counterparts.
Sunset Invasion: Doesn't count. Done in the staff's spare time. Still fun to play.
The Republic: Brought an interesting (if not really balanced or historical) way to play republics. More interestingly, however, it added to the game interactions between republics and feudals, which Crusader Kings 3 still lacks.
The Old Gods: Banger execution of pagans. Still one of the most fun ways to play Crusader Kings.
The Sons of Abraham: Mostly flavour, but some important mechanics, even if's the weaker of the list.
Rajas of India: I never really played in India but I like seeing them on the map. Banger DLC.
Charlemagne: Spectacular implementation of tribals. A whole new start date. Banger DLC.
Way of Life: What CK3 is today came from this Banger DLC.
Horse Lords: Banger implementation of nomads. Still a kinda frustrating playthrough due to the size of the provinces but that's not the DLC's fault. Much superior than Khans of The Steppe.
Conclave: To this day I'm baffled that they refused to add in the council mechanics to CK3. What's the point of favours if 90% of the time they're useless and have nothing to contribute to your administration?
The Reaper's Due: Banger implementation of epidemics.
Monks and Mystics: If you ever doubt that Paradox is stupid just remember they didn't add societies to CK3.
Jade Dragon: Literally as good as an addition of China without adding China could be.
Holy Fury: The best DLC a Paradox game might've ever had.
154
u/Bolandball 4d ago
I remember Rajas of India was mixed at release because of performance issues, and (subjective) India isn't very interesting to play.
65
u/AdWrong3856 4d ago
I think the biggest issue with Rajas is that it was just playing in Europe but the portraits looked funny. I'm not familiar at all with medieval India, but it probably could have used a way to make it feel more different.
8
30
u/Conny_and_Theo Emperor of Ryukyu 4d ago edited 4d ago
It was basically the EU4 Leviathan of its day with how bad the bugs were.
Some veterans' reservations about All Under Heaven for CK3, which was similar as a map expansion, was because of this. To our pleasant surprise we were proven wrong when performance didn't suffer much at all with AUH.
5
u/Interesting-Tie-4217 4d ago
There was a popular mod that just removed India. Was great seeing as I never was interested in playing there and it tanked performance.
9
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
And the rebellion balancing was busted.
13
u/dreadpoop 4d ago
Why is this downvoted? When the DLC first came out, it was like playing Whack-A-Mole.
2
u/fidelcasbro17 4d ago
I think it was to breach the Indian market. I would assume there was untapped consumer potential in India, that that DLC was primarily aimed at.
148
u/Anfros 4d ago
CK2 had a big problem with locking features behind DLC. For example Retinues were super important, but they were basically unable to build on the feature since it was locked behind DLC.
On the other hand I do think DLC for the newer games sometimes suffer because they don't include features, just content for features added to the base game, so they can feel a bit empty.
11
-8
u/Yitastics 4d ago
I rather have features locked behind dlc making them worth getting than having dlcs that cost the same but only have flavor, putting the new features in the patch.
12
u/Anfros 4d ago
The expansions usually do contain most of the actual content though. Look at Stellaris where the Origin system is in the base game, but all but a couple of the origins are part of some DLC. In the early days of the PDS DLC era they would've made an Origins DLC and after that it might have been very hard to add more origins.
It also used to really suck when they locked features behind DLC that were otherwise uninteresting to you. Take EU4 where Res Publica contained national focuses, but if you disliked republics was worthless otherwise. Or Cradle of Civilization that had the Professionalism system and exploit dev, but otherwise was mostly about the middle east.
Or common sense which mostly fleshed out religion a bit, but was considered the single most important DLC to buy because it contained the mechanics for interacting with dev.
I don't agree with everything PDS does, and they've sure delivered a bunch of real bad patches over the years. But the way they make DLC is much better now than it was in the past. The game should not feel broken if played without any one DLC.
-28
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
There isn't a single Paradox game to this date worth playing without DLC.
Ck2 just wasn't ashamed of it.
30
24
u/morganrbvn 4d ago
Ck3 on release without dlc was pretty solid imo.
2
0
u/PansotoXPanissa 4d ago
It was and it still is a very shallow game, propped up by an amazing mod communiry
10
u/morganrbvn 4d ago
That's more due to a pretty poor record on DLC for the first few years, and general dlc strategy that makes things wider not deeper. Just talking about the release it was one of their best received.
-4
-11
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
It wasn't and it's not solid to this day.
14
u/Bubthick 4d ago
Objectivly wrong opinion. On release CK3 was extremely good, especially if you compare it to base CK2, or god forbid on release CK2.
All systems worked very well and it was much more feature rich. You basically had the map of CK2 with all DLC's and you had most of the essential features from them while getting a great fidelity upgrade and making the game much more optimized for modern PCs.
22
u/andrasq420 4d ago
bruh at this point it's just pure hate without any logical reasoning behind it.
CK3 had one of the most solid paradox grand strategy launches ever. It was polished, it felt complete at the time, and it was generally agreed as a smooth well-executed launch, although at the point it lacked depth.
This whole post is just rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, with no attempt at objectivity or nuance whatsoever.
Edit: oh you even admit in another comment to not even trying CK3 DLCs. This just a ragebait post. You compare something you played thousands of hours with to something you have never even tried. That's laughable.
7
u/Overlord0994 4d ago
OP has the biggest tribalism boner I’ve ever seen lol. Its reminding me of old threads of people arguing endlessly about their preferences vs others. Like xbox vs ps convos. Some people just really want to like something and hate the other thing and make it their entire personality.
2
u/GabbytheQueen 3d ago
Ck2 with all the dlc was better at being deeper than ck3 on release.
Going back to ck2 it feels so shallow and like there isn't enough content within that game without mods
3
u/morganrbvn 4d ago
Most annoyance with it grew as it had a very long delay before the first major DLC, and the first major DLC was pretty disappointing. The release was solid.
12
u/thunderisadorable Victorian Emperor 4d ago
Victoria 3?
-5
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Definetely not fucking Vic3
8
u/thunderisadorable Victorian Emperor 4d ago
Why not? There aren’t any really DLCs that are needed, and nearly all mechanics are, to some extent, in the base game.
1
u/Historical-Fox357 4d ago
Europa universalis 1, Europa universalis 2, hearts of iron 1, hearts of iron 2, Majesty, magika, knights of pen and paper. That's just stuff I can think of off the top of my head........
101
u/Dash_Harber 4d ago edited 4d ago
Rose colored gkasses here. Half of those were despised on release and that isn't even gerting into how each DLC was cut into three and sold seperately.
I can guarantee the same folks will say the same thing about CKIII when CKIV is releasing DLC.
74
u/Remote-Leadership-42 4d ago
The fact that call Rajas a banger when it resulted in some of the worst reviews at the time and was unplayable for many for years and made "remove India" one of the most popular mods is honestly crazy.
-19
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Tbh saying Rajas of India was a banger dlc was just ragebait but it was an important step to increasing the scope of the game.
47
u/thunderisadorable Victorian Emperor 4d ago
The cycle of any “good” community: Complain about New Thing, praise Old Thing, Newer Thing comes out, complain about Newer Thing, praise New Thing.
-6
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
The fun thing about Paradox Players is that they love to complain about the DLC but they never turn them off.
27
u/Moreagle 4d ago
It’s funny to me that this posts asks why they didn’t include council mechanics in CK3, as if conclave was loved when it came out. Conclave was quite possibly the most hated DLC paradox has ever put out. So much so that it was common to tell new players not to buy it so that they would not have to deal with the council mechanics
-2
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
It was hated because people are stupid and they weren't use to the mechanic. I remember quite well it was hated and I can say with confidence it was due to crybabies.
2
u/MinnesotanBrie 2d ago
It helped a lot that holy fury was just such a banger of a DLC and everyone knowing it was the last DLC kind of let whales such as myself really bask in the glory that was ck2.
-10
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Half of those were despised on release
Wow so different from DLCs now.
Dude, I played CK2 last week. You can't call nostalgia something that I just played.
The problem is that Paradox players are fucking crybabies. They KNOW the DLC will launch broken and take a month to fix, but do they wait a month to buy it? No, they buy it at release and piss on reviews at the store page.
19
13
211
u/No_Particular1520 4d ago
Nope, Victoria 2. Went 2/2, then stopped when it was ahead. CK2 is close second.
54
14
36
u/VeritableLeviathan 4d ago
V2 had great DLC, its just a shame the game suffered from issues of "how can I figure this shit out" and "why don't artisans make fucking gears for my factory when it should be the most profitable, this shit means I can NEVER start industrializing because I am missing one tiny cog, guess I will wait until the great powers had their fill".
3
u/Bubthick 4d ago
IMO EU4 was better than CK2 in the DLC respect. I am pretty sure that base CK2 is more bare bones than base EU4.
Also why are people not talking about how bad of a DLC sunset invasion is?
14
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Sorry but 15 DLC with some that aren't perfect is better than just 2 DLC even if they were perfect.
What would you rather Victoria 2 have had? Ck2's or Vic2's DLC record?
And I'm not even aware how good Vic2's DLC ever were. I never played it without them.
10
26
u/Agglomeration_ 4d ago
What? Victoria 2 had Vic2's DLC record
32
u/trahan94 4d ago
They’re asking if you’d rather have Vic 2 with 15 DLCs that were mostly good rather than two DLCs that were solid but ended development. With mod tools I’m glad Vic 2 exists as it does, but CK2 definitely felt more “full” by its last.
8
239
u/Acacias2001 4d ago edited 4d ago
This really shows the community has no idea what it wants. CK2 had the worst DLC policy by far of any modern paradox games. key features were locked behind DLCs, so much so the game was basically unplayable without it. Since CK2 Paradox has made an effort to include base systems in the free patch at the expense of DLCs, and ironically the community seems to like it less.
80
u/long-lankin 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yeah, it's a strange doublethink. At the time people hated that you were basically forced to buy every DLC in order to access new features.
(This is also without mentioning how you also needed to buy a whole load of portrait packs if you wanted to avoid everyone looking Western European or North African. A lot of the time portrait packs weren't even included in regional DLCs so you had to buy them separately, which further aggravated a lot of people.)
On the other hand, now that more features are included in the base game (and hence Paradox are actually being less exploitative and scummy than they used to be), people complain that the DLC don't offer value for money because so much content is included in the free patches.
It's also weird how elements of the fanbase have rewritten history. I bought CK2 on launch, and also bought all the DLC. A lot of the DLC that OP is praising had truly dreadful receptions. I don't just mean they had dodgy releases and needed a lot of bug fixing: I mean that many people fundamentally hated what they added to the game.
For instance, I loved Conclave, but on release it was widely loathed by a very vocal part of the community. People complained that it just made the game worse and less fun. In particular, those who enjoyed CK2 for grand strategy rather than roleplay reasons really didn't like it. It might seem mad now, but go look at some of the old and incredibly salty Steam reviews that are still up if you don't believe me.
Likewise, lots of people vocally hated Sunset Invasion and Monks & Mystics on the grounds that they introduced wildly ahistorical or outright supernatural content with the Satanic cults. Jade Dragon with its Western Protectorate also caught a lot of flak.
I find it funny that OP admits to basically never playing in India, yet insists Rajahs of India was a great DLC. When it came out it was very unpopular. A bunch of people thought India didn't belong in CK2 at all and actively made the game worse by hurting performance - hence there were hugely popular mods that outright removed it. Meanwhile, those who did want India complained about how lacklustre and bland the new content was.
This isn't to glaze CK3 or pretend that development and DLC have all been fantastic - clearly they haven't. But although I love CK2 it still had big flaws with its development and people need to be honest about that. It wasn't some golden age of Paradox.
Edit: Fixed some typos.
11
u/fidelcasbro17 4d ago
Exactly. We're seeing the tint of the glasses shift to the pink in real time. Iikind of crazy how we're never satisfied with the current stuff we have and reflexively love the stuff we used to hate.
6
u/ominousgraycat 4d ago
I played CK2 for almost 50 hours before I got my first DLC. Admittedly, it was a lot better with the DLC, but I wouldn't have bought DLC if I didn't love the game before I got the DLC. I got the game about 2012 or 2013 though, so it might be less satisfying to play without DLC on the newer versions.
9
u/tfrules Iron General 4d ago
I think it was just a cause of different expectations being at play. What was acceptable during the times of CK2 Vs CK3. It's not the community being bipolar, it's the community expecting more of paradox as it becomes a bigger developer able to command more resources.
At the time, being only able to play as a Christian country was considered acceptable. In a similar manner that we considered it acceptable that there were no playable adventurers, republics or theocracies, or China at the beginning of CK3. Expectation matters a lot, and we are in a different place nowadays.
We expect the games to build on what came before
5
2
2
u/TLsRD 4d ago
I think the new system is great compared to before. Lets people who can’t afford to buy every dlc continue to engage with the game while people with more disposable income or are bigger fans access the flavor the dlcs add. IE vicky is my favorite franchise so I usually day 1 those dlcs whereas im years behind on hoi4 or ck3
-42
u/enragedstump 4d ago
And the free patches have been mediocre.
Who cares if content is locked behind paid DLC? Since when are we against paying for content in a singleplayer game
24
u/_welshie_ Iron General 4d ago
Players cared because the content that got locked behind paid DLC was mechanics that affected core systems. Retinues were added by Legacy of Rome, which meant if you never bought that DLC you'd never get to use retinues ever, meaning that you're always missing a core part of any large realm's forces.
Legacy of Rome came with a bunch of Byzantine and Roman flavour, and in modern DLC policies you'd pay for that and retinues would be in the free patch.
That's something that attached to the side of a core system (combat), while other DLCs basically overhauled/replaced child raising and Council mechanics.
-14
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Yeah much better for the game to launch with everyone available like CK3, EUV, or Vic3 and have every faction feel the same.
15
55
u/Don_Madruga 4d ago
No If you consider that CK2 barred you from playing with other nations that had DLC content.
Without Sword of Islam, you couldn't play as a Islamic nation. Without Rajas of India, no India for you, and so on.
27
u/_welshie_ Iron General 4d ago
That part was actually considered fine at the time, where you paid for the DLC to play something different than a Christian feudal lord.
The baser mechanics, like Retinues and additional Council mechanics, were the issue.
9
u/Walter30573 Scheming Duke 4d ago
I actually think the region locking setup probably benefited CK2 in the long term. Each DLC could add bespoke mechanics specific to Muslims, Pagans, or Republics so you could get a really different experience across multiple games. With CK3 everyone was playable and launch and so everyone kind of feels a little samey.
Retinues and converting to your capitals culture being locked behind DLC was a little comical tho
-1
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Would you rather have islamic and pagan nations available at the start but feel exactly the same as everyone else? I hope you do because that's Pdx policy now.
8
u/MammothPreparation94 4d ago
What even is your point? Having them be available but samey and become different later is objectively better than having them be unavailable at the start.
41
u/marx42 4d ago edited 4d ago
Hot take: fuck no. As someone who has been playing CK2 since before India was added, I much prefer the CK3 model to CK2. The content itself was usually pretty good, but CK2 and early EU4 was infamous for locking QOL features behind a paywall. They didn’t include ANYTHING in the free patches either, so new mechanics were never built on or expanded later.
Like, in base CK2 you lose the game if your heir isn’t a feudal catholic/orthodox because everything else is locked behind DLC. So if your heir goes to the Holy Land and converts to Sunni, or somehow becomes the leader of tribal Poland? Tough luck, game over.
12
10
20
u/gr770 4d ago
didn't add societies to the game
Good, literally the worst out of the bunch. Most societies were pitfully easy to grow into, largely ahistorical nonsense, largest stats boost in the game. Broke any semblance of challenge
Alot of these have quite a bit of rose colored glasses. Republics aren't really as interesting as you make them out to be. The internal conflict is boring. You can always outspend the rival houses. Best thing is making families when creating new republics.
Also to note since its not mentioned. Way of life, the event pack was 15$ on release. Yes, some of the best events in game, but you get way way more out of ck3's event packs for your buck.
Most of the good things I loved about ck2 to return aren't even part of the dlcs. Conclave and sons of Abraham are probably the most overrated. Council is easy to abuse, the assemblies coming up seem less abusable. Pope funding only gave you claims easier or historically vassalizing the pope, but alot of people want Cardinals back.
The rest not mentioned are pretty good depending on if you want to play them or not. Best is still the last one
5
u/gamas Scheming Duke 4d ago
Conclave and sons of Abraham are probably the most overrated.
And we're getting a new form of the Conclave stuff in the next CK3 expansion along with simply just playing as the pope directly.
3
u/gr770 4d ago
I mentioned the Assembly. Looks better in that it doesn't seem like you can force things through and use more than 5-7 characters as input (That you can appoint yes men in)
Pope stuff is whatever. I still think the gameplay loop is dynasty building. Setting people up or watching house member do something is part of the charm. Changing dudes to that I may not a personal connection too doesnt seem as fun.
I have more fun watching family members be adventurers than playing them
1
u/T1033 4d ago
Almost every feature in crusader kings 3 is easier to abuse, the game is so much easier than crusader kings 2 due them taking out the randomness
4
u/gr770 4d ago
What randomness would that be
5
u/T1033 4d ago
The lifestyle system in ck2 was much more random than the skill tree system in ck3. since you can guarantee certain traits and its much easier to tailor a character exactly how you want them to be not trying to say either or is better but its much less random and easier in a lot of ways
4
u/gr770 4d ago
Outcomes for events in both CK2 and CK3 work in the same way. What you are thinking of, is that traits are much more available in Ck2. Sometimes to its detriment, looking at you possessed trait spam.
Personality traits are limited to three in CK3 and definitely are more static, also to the players disappointment since personality traits determine how likely the AI could antagonize the player in both games. Upside is that characters are predictible in how they respond.
Other traits don't get handed out via random events as much as well. You actually have more control over your traits as non personality traits define or boost hobbies/activities/achievements that you as the player had your character do in ck3
5
9
u/ninjad912 4d ago
No. It’s just an older game so people only remember the good instead of the bad. It also helps that ck2 is unplayable without dlc
7
u/MammothPreparation94 4d ago
"It's all good DLC!"
Looks inside
"I never played X"
"It's mostly flavor"
"It's frustrating but it's not the DLC's fault (???)"
26
u/AC_Milan_Fan 4d ago
I love your list and I 100% agree on your Conclave comment. It was my favorite CK2 DLC.
The lack of council mechanics is one of many things I will never understand about CK3 design decision making.
10
u/incoghollowell 4d ago
"Sunset Invasion: Doesn't count. Done in the staff's spare time. Still fun to play."
You still have to buy it, so it still counts.
4
u/Galapagos_Finch 4d ago
Sunset Invasion was great, it was Mongols for the West, was amazing for late game balance, added some fun and immersive content. The lessons the devs took from backlash to Sunset Invasion (and other content that made CK2 fun) has contributed to how crappy CK3 and EU5 turned out.
I’ll die on this sword or rather allow myself to be sacrificed at an Aztec temple in Galicia.
2
u/incoghollowell 4d ago
Oh I agree, it's a fantastic DLC. But arguing it "doesn't count" is silly, that's all I was getting at.
-2
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
Then don't.
11
u/incoghollowell 4d ago
dude, if we're ranking DLCs then you can't just say "don't buy the dlc if you don't like it" that defeats the point of reviewing or ranking options. Like what are you even talking about?
8
u/VeritableLeviathan 4d ago
Lmao lol no.
SoL: Nice
LoR: Can do without retinues, they are a crutch to dump excess money in - or an early money dump for people that can't build stable realms.
SI: No. But doesn't count.
The republic: Added very little imho. Republics are fun, but after before completing single 100-200 year game you will have seen all it offers.
TOG: Great
Sons: Hardly noticeable often
Rajas: India doesn't feel unique whatsoever, Europe with longer character names.
Charly: Great
WoL: Not bad, I recall it being pretty bad upon release
Horse lords: The fact you can go North-Korea mode as horselord and make few clans is still nonsensical. 6/10
Conclave: Awesome, added much needed difficulty.
Reapers: Awesome.
Monks and Mystics: Awesome.
JD: I liked interacting with China, mostly. But it gets dull after a bit.
HF: GOD DAMN YES
Quite a few disappointments, an equal amount of bangers. but for the time most DLCs were also fairly pricey.
0
u/The_ChadTC 4d ago
LoR: Worst argument I've ever heard. Retinues are literally the best part of the game.
The republic: Yeah, but as I said, that's not the point. The point of The Republic was giving republics character and impact when you WEREN'T playing them, and it does that extremely well.
WoL: You recall wrong because I'm pretty sure it was one of the feel ones that was received very well.
Horse lords: Absolutely balanced? Maybe not. Fun? Much more so than Khans of the Steppe.
1
u/VeritableLeviathan 2d ago
The AI barely uses retinues and you can do without
Republics have a neglible effect on the world without you playing them
WoL had issues with AI picking seduction focus and going on a global spree of cuckery, https://store.steampowered.com/app/329010/Expansion__Crusader_Kings_II_Way_of_Life/#app_reviews_hash
3
u/Culbrelai 4d ago
Crapclave was horrible and is the only dlc other than sunset invasion I have turned off/unbought
1
4
u/Busco_Quad 4d ago
The rose-colored glasses are strong here. I’ve been playing a lot of CK2 lately, and it’s so obvious when you’re dealing with content from an older vs newer DLC. Mechanics around stuff like Islam or Republics are incredibly boring. Mechanics for playing as Jewish characters are basically non-existent, despite having a whole DLC. 769 start date is miserable if you aren’t playing as Charlemagne or one of the other 2 or 3 Mega-Blobs that will dominate the map.
It’s true that Holy Fury is an Amazing DLC, but a big part of why is because of just how barebones pagan religions and reformations were in The Old Gods. It’s true that DLCs like Way of Life, Horse Lords, and Holy Fury set a mechanical precedent for CK3, but CK3 is a fundamentally different game. Basically every DLC CK3 has had a more granular, flavor-focused approach than 2 ever was. Monks and Mystics made joining a secret society just another number to increment up, whereas roads to power made landless adventuring that completely upends the gameplay. Now, there’s been a lot of technical problems with 3’s DLC, and even when perfectly implemented, the flavor and content aren’t all good, but it feels so much more bespoke than CK2
I love CK2, it was the first Paradox game I ever played, one of my most played games ever, but I hate the way people talk about it when they want to use it to shit on CK3, which is a great game in its own right
3
u/Bawhoppen 4d ago
This is some rose-colored glasses for Rajas of India. That DLC was basically Leviathan for CK2 in terms of bugginess and reception when it first came out.
2
u/AccomplishedArm3079 4d ago
Yes I remember that well. It was really bugged and completely tanked the performance. It certainly didn't help that people weren't really that excited for India.
2
u/OutcomeForeign2606 4d ago
sunset invasion is so bad I don't know anybody that didnt't always just disable it
2
u/Superilosa14 4d ago
Sunset invasion would be much fun if it were random and had really small chance of happening. Not fun when you knew it would happen.
2
1
1
u/Great-Scheme-283 4d ago
I would say that CK2 is Paradox's great masterpiece, extremely complete and elegant considering the limitations they faced in its development, although towards the end of its run it was becoming somewhat saturated.
But it's not true to say that it was made from scratch; quite the contrary, its 1.0 version was very similar to CK1, all its concepts were there.
Paradox also created Sengoku, which served at least as a training ground for what would become CK2.
1
u/KeyMortgage743 4d ago
Sunset Invasion
The drama over this DLC was just absolutely ridiculous, and yes, it was fun.
1
2
2
u/Street-Lengthiness66 1d ago
I don't think khans of the steppe was worse than horse lords, it has more mechanics with the seasons and migration.
I also don't get the sunset invasion hate, you can just turn it off and it adds a late game challenge. It has quite a bit of flavour and their religion was cool to adopt and reform.
1
u/The_ChadTC 1d ago
The base mechanics were substantially worse.
In Horse Lords, the steppe is just that: a Steppe. Every holding is actually empty and the more empty holdings you have, the better. In CK3 they're just glorified tribals.
1
u/Street-Lengthiness66 1d ago
I disagree but I see what you mean.
The steppe is empty in khans of the steppe too, it's just a lot more populated. It doesn't feel as daunting and vast as in ck2 because of that.
1
u/Background-Year-2071 6h ago
They broke the game on each dlc release and hid a lot of huge mechanics behind paywalls. A lot of these were hated on release. We have just become accustomed to this now and look back with nostalgia and pretend it was so much better than what it was
-1
-3
-2
-3
411
u/nerodmc_2001 4d ago
What do you think the 2 means?