• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's just 3 slots tho, you have 6 in county capitals in high medieval anyways.
And those three slots can be economic buildings. In places like forests, it's 4 buildings.

It will earlygame tho. Especially if some get-rich-quick schemes were to be addressed (cough cough the whole stewardship left tree cough).
Your economy is better for sure, but your military is significantly less overpowered.

And also idk man, every county has the potential to be the only county of a character holding it, and i would bet every county does become that at some point, so what we truly will end up with is military buildings that dont do anything everywhere all the time.
We already have military buildings that do anything for the AI, and stationing/stacking compounds the issue.
 
I think there is a bigger underlying issue. When the player starts a game, he will probably look at his income and see that it's around a measly + 3 gold or so. So what most people probably do is to first invest into economical buildings to be able to invest into military buildings later.

The player will probably also try to keep the castles and duchies he has build up over the generations. The AI does neither of those things and so it will sit at the + 3 gold income for the biggest part of the game. The AI just has no plans, no goals, no sense at all. While the player will be rich after a few generations, most AI rulers will go bankrupt just by raising their armies.
 
The player will probably also try to keep the castles and duchies he has build up over the generations. The AI does neither of those things and so it will sit at the + 3 gold income for the biggest part of the game. The AI just has no plans, no goals, no sense at all.
AI doesnt need any kind of planning to see that it has no income and good income buildings available to build. Building stuff that makes your income go up is no rocket science and doesnt require any forward-thinking at all, except for "bigger number - good" one.

Also the post we're arguing below rn literally shows the exact opposite - AI only builds economy
 
AI doesnt need any kind of planning to see that it has no income and good income buildings available to build. Building stuff that makes your income go up is no rocket science and doesnt require any forward-thinking at all, except for "bigger number - good" one.

Also the post we're arguing below rn literally shows the exact opposite - AI only builds economy

I haven't played in a while since there have been no improvements on the (missing) difficulty of the game. Back then I found the building templates of the AI weird and suboptimal. I imagine that my point that the AI doesn't keep their duchies over the generations still stands, though? Does the AI still have abysmal income even later on in the game or has this been improved?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I haven't played in a while since there have been no improvements on the (missing) difficulty of the game. Back then I found the building templates of the AI weird and suboptimal. I imagine that my point that the AI doesn't keep their duchies over the generations still stands, though? Does the AI still have abysmal income even later on in the game or has this been improved?
Screenshots at the start of the thread, literally
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To the OPs original point:
I just had a thought. You know why that is? Because "builder" personality AI's have a big weight up for economic buildings, and they're the ones building the most buildings, probably, while warfare focused ones just... dont build much?... Coz they have money to spend on wars and stuff. And that results in most buildings being build by eco-focused AI's, and thus most of them are economic buildings....
 
Another issue is that the AI seems to waste a bunch of resources in nonsensical MAA picks.

While a player decides "I think I'll go for some Heavy Infantry now" and picks bonuses to HI, then picks an accolade to boost them all further, the AI is building nonsense like Light Infantry mixed with Heavy cav and archers.

Personally, I'd like to see the AI dynamically watching the enemy armies it plans to go to war with, delete some MAA, rebuild certain holdings, reform their MAA to counter what they expect the enemy to use and then declare war.

But i'd settle to just having each AI have their own specialty and, at least, making good use of them.
I think there is a bigger underlying issue. When the player starts a game, he will probably look at his income and see that it's around a measly + 3 gold or so. So what most people probably do is to first invest into economical buildings to be able to invest into military buildings later.

The player will probably also try to keep the castles and duchies he has build up over the generations. The AI does neither of those things and so it will sit at the + 3 gold income for the biggest part of the game. The AI just has no plans, no goals, no sense at all. While the player will be rich after a few generations, most AI rulers will go bankrupt just by raising their armies.
This is a common strategy in all strategy games, specially RTS.


Of course, if we were playing Starcraft no start would be better than simply building nothing but workers, workers, and more workers until you build bases and more workers to mine all the resources from the entire map and only then start investing in military units and start spamming them as if you had infinite resources, completely overwhelming any opponent.

The reason why we can't do that is because there's an opponent on the other side, so if you build nothing but economy your enemy will zergrush and burn down your bases before you can do anything.


The same needs to happen in CK3, players are building nothing but economy at the start because there is no threat stopping them from doing it, if the AI was VERY good at creating military buildings early, and mercyless towards weaker neighbors (including your fellow vassals) we'd be having a very different early game experience.

Try playing Nobunaga's Ambition: Awakening and you'll see what I mean, the AI in that game is ruthless, specially on the higher difficulty, if you raise your armies to attack one side your neighbor, seeing your empty castles will 100% raise their armies to attack you, their AI will also always try to make alliances with their other direct neighbors to avoid getting attacked when they move against you too, so if you don't build up armies, along with your economy, you'll be destroyed, if you don't make alliances too you'll eventually get surrounded by many alliances and nobody will have your back, in that game you don't build armies early or send gifts to build up relations with neighbors because you want to, you do it because you need to.
 
Last edited:
But i'd settle to just having each AI have their own specialty and, at least, making good use of them.
No that's no good. Sure, AI decided it will specialise on light cav..... Except their domain is already filled with barracks and camps, so it just sucks. Imo there should just be a big weight up for MAAs they can actually station. And maybe a weight down for getting more than 2 different fighting MAA types. I dont like that one that much because it's just metagaming, but countering is such an awful system that i would rather have AI metagame around it a bit than get all the unit types in the world and still die in one battle.
 
I think the real problem with the stationing system is "I don't wanna click all that and figure out where the right buildings are". And even the AI agrees.

The buildings should just give the bonuses to all relevant men at arms divided by the men at arms getting the bonus. So you don't have to constantly station in provinces or do a stationing musical chairs. Got a full stable? Well now your horses get that bonus. Got two horse men at arms? They each get half the bonus. Built a second fully kitted stable? Now they each have the full bonus. Got two stables and one horse? Too bad, modifiers don't stack.

Essentially should be the same system with barely any management or clicking required. Even a dumb AI could handle it. Just make it build the buildings for its current MAA. And if they already have the buildings then make them only pick the MAA for the buildings they have.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The (1) musical chairs of retinue stationing described above and (2) the abhorrent Accolade UI (making it an absolute pain to appoint accolades, appoint successors, etc) are currently two of the most annoying parts of warfare right now.

In terms of actual AI strategy and direction for army movements, the last patch was a huge improvement (being able to see the army logic on a tooltip is very nice at helping us to rationalize/self-narrate what might otherwise be seen as a boneheaded AI decision, and player army automation is a decent band-aid for the still remaining frequent but laughably small revolts.
 
The (1) musical chairs of retinue stationing described above and (2) the abhorrent Accolade UI (making it an absolute pain to appoint accolades, appoint successors, etc) are currently two of the most annoying parts of warfare right now.

In terms of actual AI strategy and direction for army movements, the last patch was a huge improvement (being able to see the army logic on a tooltip is very nice at helping us to rationalize/self-narrate what might otherwise be seen as a boneheaded AI decision, and player army automation is a decent band-aid for the still remaining frequent but laughably small revolts.

Small revolts should be handled by local AI governor with the local armies stationed imo. Only if they fail and mess up do you want to take over the situation.

After all, this is literally the job of governors or feudal vassals. Their job is to protect the local region from small scale revolts or raids.