Anon11/09/25, 16:37No.2221701
>imprisoning and castrating your vassals, and forcing their family to be your concubines isn't "tyranny"
>seduction, carousing, marriage, societies and conquest aren't "rp"
>marriage alliances, tributaries, vassals and religious diplomacy isn't diplomacy
>trade posts, holding development and great works aren't "economics"
>actually developing your levies and supplementing them with men at arms only for large empires and merchant republics isn't "warfare"
Even ignoring the fact that CK2 does 80% of the above unambiguously better than CK3, none of that is the reason why it's superior.
By far the biggest advantage is that CK2 empires are genuinely unstable, and they need constant work during succession to remain intact and consolidated even at the endgame. In CK3 you just blob, and blob, and blob all the while your vassals just sit there like retards doing nothing.
On top of that, the map actually had texture. The fact that cultures were locked made it matter what retinues you had and locked you out of just stacking retarded modifiers through syncretism. The silk road and gold road made playing in india/persia/africa massively distinct from europe, as did the tribal/nomad land in the north being completely different yet again, and the european merchant republics even if you were still playing as a feudal country in all instances.
And when you changed religions, it actually represented a huge deal for your country with significant mechanical tradeoffs rather than "something you do literally every game because it gives you bigger numbers". Hell, even if you wanted to switch religion to a more OP one you'd end up absolutely cucked by moral authority outside of the handful that start out totally dominant like sunni islam.CK3 is just fucking boring - at this point it's basically just a VN with an optional map accessory.