It's more of a discussion on how one can go about designing difficulties in many different ways. It's not about current issue of fixing or improving the AI.
- 1
-
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.
It's more of a discussion on how one can go about designing difficulties in many different ways. It's not about current issue of fixing or improving the AI.
I don't think it's a simple matter of difficult that the "hard moders" are complaining about. Like @47pik said the problems that veteran players are experiencing go deeper than just the game not being "hard" enough.
Also lack of mechanical depth will also hurt a lot "EZ moders" eventually as they discover after a while that the game is far less complex than it seems at first, and that the game in the long run is as wide as the sea but deep as a puddle.
Last edited:
- 8
It needs to feel organically scaled. Otherwise it's just making barriers that isn't fun to play.
- 1
- 1
But, again.
All of the other paradox games are seen as much, much, much harder than CK3, even the easiest paradox games is several times harder than CK3..... And those classics from the golden age of paradox are -all- growing their daily player numbers faster than CK3.
Which suggests that this myth that new players can't handle difficulty is absolutely false, new players are not stupid, hell, we were all new players at some point, most of us learned paradox games playing much harder games from their golden age, and here we are.
Besides, the "difficulty" for new players in both CK2 and CK3 has nothing to do with poor game design or a disabled AI, it's the systems, learning the specifics of dejure territories, sucession lines & rules, casus belli, etc... Even though CK2 was much better designed and far more challenging, it was still seen as the easiest paradox game while it was alive, but it was also seen as the hardest to learn, the polar opposite of EU4 in which even a veteran player could get beaten by the AI sometime, and lose regularly trying certain starts like restoring the byzantine empire, but the game itself and it's rules were the easiest to learn.
So I'd say keeping the game in this state, and the AI completely disabled will do nothing to new players and steamcharts show CK3 hasn't really grown until RtP came out but keeping things like this is certainly going to harm the game in the long run, as veterans lose interest, and these new players are going to become veterans too at some point, and show the same concerns.
Besides, I'll have to ask this again, if they are making content for a game that's half a decade old, who are they making DLC for?
- 8
Ideally you'd be targeting new, lapsed, and old players with each DLC but, given CK3's extremely static player trends, I'm guessing its just a bunch of lapsed players cycling in and out of playing the game and I'm probably a lesser number of new players drawn in by specific content who probably drop away after they've burned through what content they find interesting.
Personally, content wise, I'm probably done with CK3 after AUH. My primary interest in the game is driven by history and the only real things left that the game hasn't touched is basically Central Asia and the Caucasus. I'd love a DLC about the Turkic migrations into Persia and the Middle East but, who knows if the devs will ever do that.
- 3
EU4 has a very hard mode that's just a bunch of modifiers and it makes the game way more fun for me, I don't get why people are so against one in CK3
- 1
- 1
I'm personally againts this in absolutely every strategy game ever. It's just a way to make the game more unfair for the player. I don't like that CK (not just 3) is easy, it's in fact my least favorite thing about the game, but I take an easy game over one that buffs/debuffs AI with special modifiers at any day. The way I see it, players and AI should have as much of similar conditions as possible.
- 5
- 4
I don't think people are strongly against the idea itself, it's just that it's a wholly inadequate solution to the games current problems and would prefer a more holistic solution than just changing all the existing modifiers.
- 6
- 4
I agree. I think framing it as “CK3 is too easy” is problematic and part of the reason why the complaints are so annoying to the devs.
It isn’t that the game is inherently easy to play; it’s that no AI can offer a competent player a real challenge. You can tune the numbers as much as you like, but what CK3 really needs is something that can’t be accomplished by balance patches alone.
- 7
- 4
- 2
I think one of the worst problems with the AI is that they don't seem to behave according to their traits. We see this all the time with Seduction, murder, and the Infamous Beating.
Never mind that "The Beating" only gives the absolute worst traits to the victim. If you look ay the traits of the ones giving out the beatings, they're often kind, and compassionate characters. And they're going around, beating royal children?
Seducers have a far too easy time seducing their "victims", but often the seducees are chaste, and Soul Partners-I forget the actual term-and should be proof against seduction.
Murders are carried out with no regard for whether there is any profit to be earned by it; characters most often killing others simply because they don't like the other guy's face.
Instead of making the AI "smarter", whatever that means, maybe the devs should concentrate on making the AI mor logical?
Never mind that "The Beating" only gives the absolute worst traits to the victim. If you look ay the traits of the ones giving out the beatings, they're often kind, and compassionate characters. And they're going around, beating royal children?
Seducers have a far too easy time seducing their "victims", but often the seducees are chaste, and Soul Partners-I forget the actual term-and should be proof against seduction.
Murders are carried out with no regard for whether there is any profit to be earned by it; characters most often killing others simply because they don't like the other guy's face.
Instead of making the AI "smarter", whatever that means, maybe the devs should concentrate on making the AI mor logical?
- 6
- 2
The game has been out for 5 years, it's time to accept that it's not going to fundamentally improve. Even if the devs were capable of fixing all of the deeper problems they would be too busy adding China to do it. Band-aid solutions are the only thing we can realistically expect.
- 2
- 1
- 1
The thing is that a harder modifier doesn’t actually help though. Because it’s not about the game being hard. It’s about the game being boring. Making numbers bigger just makes the game boring and now also annoying. It doesn’t help anyone experience better stories. It doesn’t help us make interesting choices. It just means we have to minmax more.
Again this is why we’re trying to push back on the “difficulty” framing. We want consequences and interesting play patterns, and emergent stories, not a Hardcore Gamer™ challenge.
And frankly, I think this benefits newer players too. Game of Thrones would be boring if Ned Stark showed up to King’s Landing and just got to +50 approval with all the Lannisters.
Last edited:
- 10
- 4
If you need an example, in EU4 the harder difficulties add a flat penalty to the player for making alliances. It's just a number, but it makes the difference between "I improved relations then made them my ally" and "I improved relations and built up my army and insulted their rival and hired a diplomatic advisor and sent them a gift and I was barely able to get them agree to be my ally". That's how making a number bigger can make better stories.
- 7
- 2
- 2
I think they're foundationally different types of games, though. EU4, in a really oversimplified way, is kind of a game about numbers going up. You're in a constant arms race of progress to have the biggest numbers, and you want your numbers to keep going up so you can have bigger numbers than the guy next to you. It's much more standard grand strategy in that way, and having a difficulty that makes those numbers harder to push up works well for making that game more interesting. I think, for a game about characters and relationships though, simply changing those numbers means less.
To make a weird analogy: EU4 is like a marble race, and CK3 is like a pinball machine. EU4 is a pretty linear game, in that you are generally trying to get stronger, maybe in taking more territory or maybe just in the quality of your wealth and power, but once you suffer a few catastrophic defeats, the run is kind of over, the same way that once a marble falls behind in a linear race, it's probably over for it. The trajectory of a Crusader Kings game, though, is more like a pinball machine: it's the most fun when it's bouncing all over the place. It's not fun to get the ball in the hole as quickly as possible, but to juggle the ball for as long as you can, watching how it bounces around and seeing how long you can last, but knowing that, inevitably, you're going to lose.
If you just make the paddles on a pinball machine weaker to make it harder to juggle the ball, it doesn't make the game better, it just makes it more annoying.
Simply making characters more efficient at the things they're doing isn't what makes CK3 interesting, in my opinion. What makes it interesting is that they are doing things, giving you weird obstacles to bounce off of and take your game in new and exciting ways, and I don't think that's something you can just throw numbers at. I think that's something a lot more difficult and time consuming to adjust because it requires making the game bounce the player around in interesting yet non-rage-quit-inducing ways (poor Harm events, you were a good idea, I'll always love you).
In fairness, I agree that there are definitely some numbers that could be tweaked to make the game both more interesting and more difficult, but I don't think simply making the game more difficult in terms of the efficiency of other characters (or the inefficiency of your own character) works as well in a RPG-esque strategy game like CK3 as it does in EU4 or most other grand strategy games.
PS. I apologize if I've misrepresented or misunderstood EU4, that's just how the game feels to me, but I'm very bad at it and have only played a few hundred hours (what a weird thing to say—only in Paradox games, amirite?).
- 4
- 3
- 2
That's the issue, in terms of combat CK3 is simpler, perhaps the simplest paradox game ever made, but it has the exact same dynamic.
The only difference is that in EU4 the AI actually realizes there's a race, competes with you, and often stays years ahead of the military tech worldwide, while in CK3 the AI doesn't realize there's the exact same dynamic, watches as the player gets +500% damage on his MAA while every AI in the planet remains with the exact same armies they started the game with.
Hence the "it's all naked corvettes with red lasers" analogy from Stellaris.
If you were playing against a proper EU4 AI in Stellaris, by the time you researched cruisers some enemies would have battleships, everyone else would have cruisers, and you'd have epic battles against giant fleets just like your own.
If you were using the CK3 AI in Stellaris, by the time you reached cruisers the AI would still have the 20 naked corvettes without any technology using basic weapons they started the game with.
There is no number modifier you can slap on it and make the game functional, the AI isn't bad, it's turned off.
While you were starting your early conquests from a single county: The AI did nothing
While you were looking for allies or partners with good stats for your family: The AI did nothing
While you were building up your domain & economy: The AI did nothing
While you were working through your vassal contracts to get better deals, lowering levies (useless) in return: The AI did nothing
While you were conquering your first kingdom: The AI did nothing
While you became the cultural head and started researching technologies that actually helped you: The AI did nothing
While your culture evolved and you could add new traditions: The AI did nothing
While you were gathering artifacts for your court & family: The AI did nothing
While you were landing your own family and getting more thrones for renown/stability: The AI did nothing
While you were done with economic buildings in your domain and started building a few military ones to station your MAA: The AI did nothing
etc....
Is it any surprise that after 20 hours of gameplay, in a single game, every encounter ends up with an instant stackwipe? While you had 20 hoursof content/actions taken, the AI literally sat there and drooled.
The only time in which the AI can be slightly challenging is in your very first encounter, in your very first war, specially when you don't start it and a bigger foe attacks you, anything after that experience goes downhill as the AI shows no reaction and never attempts to take a single action, in intrigue, in economy, diplomacy or warfare to keep up with a player that doesn't just stand there going afk at speed 5 clicking events.
Last edited:
- 10
- 4
I do think some kind of “ambition” system would do a lot of good so the AI has something to work toward. Obviously I don’t think it’s optimal for all the characters to be competent and trying to get strong since they need to feel different, but they should all be working toward some kind of goal that’s distinct to them (even if that’s being a lazy failson sometimes). This gives them some kind of momentum, and helps them feel unique and… like characters, who have agency, who are pursuing what is important to them.
Also could help structure things for the player too, something that can help drive storytelling.
- 9
- 2
- 1
I've convinced myself that story cycles would be a perfect fit for an AI ambitions system. I think it would fit well with sometimes giving characters a special toolbox with special events/bonuses/content to help focus them towards a goal.
- 3
I don't know who for at this point.
You either understand how to play the game and easily win or don't.
Modifiers and extra bonuses don't teach the AI how to beat anyone but other AI.
Are people under the impression that a hard mode currently exists that makes this necessary?
General comments:
I know people always harp on AI but I feel that without being able to see behind the curtain there's no way to know how possible it is to improve, some mods manage to do some work but I haven't been particularly impressed with any of them with AI specifically which suggests the problem is harder than just making it better
The Beating is really not that bad. Shy and paranoid aren't terrible traits and craven is completely fine if you're a coward that doesn't lead your own armies and it only happens a couple times a generation. A lot of you are probably running into problems with it because you're trying to game succession so that you don't have to deal with partition. Just have more kids, pick the best one (or the worst one) and fight out every new generation. It's a reliably fun part of succession and disinheriting/providing land/sending kids to a holy order/blinding the bad ones isn't that hard if you really don't want to deal with partition
- 1
- 1