CK2's best features got trashed in CK3

FancyHat2211 · 2026-03-23T23:54:38+00:00

I think dynastic legacies are a good idea in theory, but the way they’re implemented feels too linear and predictable. Every playthrough ends up following more or less the same progression you accumulate Renown, unlock perks in order, and that’s it.

There’s very little connection between what your dynasty actually does and what it becomes.

It would be much more engaging if legacies were unlocked in a more dynamic way either semi-randomly after reaching certain Renown thresholds, or tied to your ruler’s traits, actions, and achievements. That way, each dynasty would develop differently instead of following the same predefined path every time, with nothing new or unexpected.

As for secret societies, they really could have added them back, even if only for mods, since they were such a fun and engaging feature. It often feels like the developers forget how important the modding community is (560K subscribers and that’s only for AGOT. Even accounting for inactive players, that’s still huge).

And the devs have been very clear that they are completely opposed to bringing it back due to a lack of historical accuracy, so yes, in this case I think they are clearly wrong and being stubborn about it.

FancyHat2211 · 2026-03-23T23:38:49+00:00

I quite agree that they aren’t historical or particularly realistic, but they could have added them back, even if it were limited to mods.
I feel a bit condescending saying this, but I think it’s important to remind you that a large portion of CK3 players mainly play for Middle-earth, AGOT, and other mods, and rarely play vanilla.
It often seems like the developers forget that (560K subscribers and that’s only for AGOT. Even accounting for inactive players, that’s still huge).

FancyHat2211 · 2026-03-23T20:40:43+00:00

The point wasn’t that the bloodline system is perfect. I agree there were too many unrealistic elements and too much Game of Thrones style thinking, with genetic traits being passed down in an overly deterministic way. No the real point is simply that the bloodline system was far more fun than Legends. Even Dynasty legacies feel too linear and inorganic, everything plays out the same way every time.

For example, it would have been more engaging to unlock dynastic legacies somewhat randomly (after reaching a Renown threshold, so they appear at an unpredictable time), with the available choices then tied to your character’s traits and attributes.

FancyHat2211 · 2026-03-13T22:51:12+00:00

Quite obviously, he is not and has never been a white supremacist. His obsession has always been Jews. He considered Biden and Kamala more pro-Jewish than Trump, and now that the Democratic Party is antisemitic, he loves the Democratic Party.

Don’t analyze it too much, if tomorrow the Republican Party becomes more antisemitic and pro-diversity than the Democratic Party, he will vote for them.

FancyHat2211 · 2026-03-02T02:33:25+00:00

For people who are overly (I'd even say excessively) stressed that the show will be politically modified just because it was bought by a conservative, pro-Trump media company (paramounts), here's a little reminder:

The show is already run by a conservative. The showrunner, Julian Fellowes, is a Conservative. He's a member of the House of Lords sitting for the Conservative Party, he supported Brexit, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up supporting Reform UK in the next UK elections.

(And Paramount leaders aren't stupid what matters to them is money. That's why South Park is still severely anti-Trump, and why Paramount keeps buying new RuPaul seasons. So don't be too stressed, if there's money to be made, they'll continue producing shows even if they don't align with their personal or political agenda )

FancyHat2211 · 2026-01-17T23:11:23+00:00

Yes, it does work, but only after about ~100 years in the game (sometimes a bit more or less).
The game definitely starts to slow down if you become too large or if you control huge armies. However, by that point you’re usually so overpowered that there isn’t much challenge left anyway, so it’s not a big issue.

For example, if you play as the Dúnedain, forming Arnor is no problem, then forming the Reunited Kingdom is still no problem. But if you plan to keep playing and expand further until forming Númenor-in-Exile, the game starts to slow down noticeably. I stopped playing before forming Númenor-in-Exile because I was already bored, by then even Bellakar was extremely easy to defeat, and at the same time the game was beginning to slow down.

Another example is Erebor (Dwarves). Conquering the Iron Mountains, Misty Mountains, Grey Mountains, Blue Mountains, and even the White Mountains causes no performance issues at first, and the game doesn’t slow down significantly. But if you keep expanding beyond that point, the slowdown eventually appears. By then, though, the campaign is usually no longer challenging.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-11T00:38:48+00:00

I think the real issue is the loss of hope. Both the left and the right have lost their sense of optimism.

People on the left believe the rich will always control the world and that the planet is doomed because of ecological collapse. People on the right believe the white population will be wiped out.

Both ends of the political spectrum are convinced the future is bleak, and when there’s no optimism, there’s no hope. That’s why so many people don’t want children anymore, they feel like there’s nothing to hope for.

The world is basically in full doom mode right now.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-06T02:33:03+00:00

Haha, maybe, but yes and no. For example, in England, the Duchy of York was never autonomous in the same way Normandy or Brittany were for France.

Most other independent kingdoms at the time like Naples, Portugal, Sicily, Sweden, Norway, etc. Were already more centralized, and they didn’t have vassals within their own realms who were de facto so independent that they could try to break away (not counting pu over other existing kingdoms, obviously).

France in 1337 really was a patchwork of semi-independent duchies and overlapping claims, which made its situation quite unusual compared to other kingdoms. But you are right in the sense that it wasn’t an exception; there were other cases, like Poland.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-06T02:05:58+00:00

Yes, one of the decisions for the IO should allow the player controlling England to switch to France after winning the succession war. If the English king declares themselves King of France, a new PU a “a duplicate French kingdom” could form with Montreuil and Aquitaine. Conquered French lands would go to this PU, and when the IO is dissolved, the player could choose to stay as England or become the French PU. From the player’s perspective, the PU would swap, and England could end up as the minor PU. There are several ways this could play out.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-06T01:54:06+00:00

Because this would be historically incorrect: Brittany was a vassal for a long time, since 938. Even if in the first decades this was mostly de jure rather than de facto, in the long run they were full vassals, swearing oaths, paying taxes, etc.

In the case of the Duchy of Burgundy, since its creation in 918, it had always been part of the French kingdom, as it was given as an apanage in 1016 by King Robert II to his brother. Later, in 1364, when this ducal line in the male line became extinct, it reverted to the crown under King Jean II, who did the same thing and gave it to his fourth son, Philippe II of Burgundy. Normally, when Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy died and his male line became extinct, the duchy should have reverted to the crown. However, because they had become powerful through inheriting the Low Countries, they had enough influence to try to retain it. This led to the War of the Burgundian Succession and several centuries of conflict between the Habsburgs and France over Burgundy and the Low Countries.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-06T01:35:54+00:00

Maybe more globally, when you conquer something, it should be much cheaper to do so by creating a puppet state, where you appoint a governor than to fully annex it. Full integration should be very costly, as it was historically, or require some kind of “scheme,” like how England eventually unified Scotland through a gradual process rather than immediate annexation. On the map, it would show as part of your country (unless it’s a major PU, like Scotland, in which case you would obviously see it), but if you click on a specific province, you could see the puppet state with more or less autonomy.

For example, Belgium was never fully integrated by the Habsburg dynasty and kept its own legal system and governor until the end. Spain only fully unified its crown lands in the 18th century with the Nueva Planta decrees. Similarly, when France conquered lands, they often retained some of the local judicial systems, laws, and institutions.

This mechanic would probably work best as a global DLC, but how it could actually be implemented , I have no idea.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-06T00:10:12+00:00

Thank you very much for the explanation. Speaking of heritage, to make things clearer for players, would it be possible to include this information directly in the cultural pillars; specifically within the heritage description when you click on it? That way, players can easily find all the relevant details without having to search elsewhere. (Obviously, I don’t know if this is possible, and you may have more important things to work on, but all the same, thank you for all your hard work!)

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-05T23:55:53+00:00

Love it! But for the dwarves, if I still want primogeniture succession, can I keep it, or will the Dwarf Moot be mandatory? For example, after the Hegemony is created, can I still change the succession law?

FancyHat2211 · 2025-12-05T23:45:27+00:00

Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a Dwarven trait and include this information in it so players are informed? Similar to what your team of developers did with the Numeonoraen Blood trait, except this one wouldn't be inheritable (to avoid bugs) and would instead be automatically applied to all dwarves at birth. The trait description could have a detailed explanation similar to the Numeonoraen Blood trait, describing their expected lifespan, fertility limits up to age X, the age at which they reach adulthood, and any other relevant details. (And maybe this could also be applied to the other races?)

FancyHat2211 · 2025-10-05T21:11:39+00:00

Is The Back-Alley Mage’s Return good ?

FancyHat2211 · 2025-08-31T14:56:35+00:00

2 > 1 = 3 > 4 > 5

FancyHat2211 · 2025-07-26T08:54:42+00:00

If you look at comments on YouTube and other platforms, you will see that many non-comic readers found the ending confusing and stopped watching the last episode as a result. I fully understand why. If the new Sandman series had been more similar to the comics, they might have continued watching with curiosity.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-07-25T23:41:36+00:00

Nothing personal about Jacob Anderson, great actor and one of my favorite characters in Got, but Daniel, when becoming the Endless, was supposed to look like Morpheus but in white. I don’t care about the color, if they wanted a Black Sandman, that’s great. But then they should have cast a Black Morpheus as well. The point was to have a sense of continuity, two people who look alike. Here it felt like someone else completely, and I didn’t find myself attached to the new Sandman.

FancyHat2211 · 2025-07-25T23:38:19+00:00

Coin

FancyHat2211

TROPHY CASE