Instead of countries being monolithic blocks, each county is controlled by a character. Too many strategy games depict your country as a monolithic entity with the only internal divide being “unrest”, which would cause rebellions.Ĭrusader Kings broke this mold by using the Medieval era to depict the petty squabbles of the nobility in each realm. The other great strength of Crusader Kings is its simulation of internal realm politics. The only strategy game series that ever came close to focusing this much on characters is King of Dragon Pass and Six Ages. In the game, the black death was not simply a debuff to your nation but is a real danger to you as a character as well. Crusader Kings 3 grounds the experience by tying you directly with a character in the world meaning you were always balancing mundane concerns with your grand political ambitions. In most strategy games you lead a country as a detached omnipotent figure. It builds on the strengths of its predecessor while improving a ton that was wrong with the previous game.
The in-depth character system of Crusader Kings 3 makes it one of the most unique strategy games I’ve played.
So it’s no wonder that I had to write an excessively long review of its sequel. Crusader Kings 2 is my favorite game ever.
