New rulers are most vulnerable when they ascend just because you control territory on a map does not mean you command the obedience of the people who actually run the place it is worth accepting setbacks - such as conceding to powerful vassals - if doing so strengthens your hand in the long run and strategic marriages, opportunistic expansion, and shrewd vassal management are still the keys to a long and successful reign. Most of the mechanics are similar, the overall flow is the same, and lessons from CK2 still carry over. The core of the game is recognisably the same as Crusader Kings II. The end of my CK3 playthrough as the House of Dunkeld, who started as kings of Scotland and finished as the most powerful monarchs in Europe. And once I learned my way around CK3’s new, improved UI, I found a familiar experience: this is still a character-driven game about the rise and fall of dynasties, in which a loyal son can become the next generation’s rebellious brother and a well-placed friendship can be worth thousands of swords. I’ve played three games - two unsuccessful in 867, the first as Alfred the Great and his descendants, the second an attempt to establish a Norse realm in India and a final, successful run that took me from King of Scotland in 1066 to emperor of Britannia and Francia. This entry is part 1 of 1 in the series Crusader Kings IIIĬrusader Kings III is a successful evolutionary sequel to the game I called “the most significant strategy game of the last decade”.
0 kommentar(er)
