Is paradox really telling us all to quit the game?

[Ral Rednaxela]

This part of the video was disappointing to me as well. It felt like they're annoyed at the veteran players for wanting more of a challenge. I'm not trying to rag on them unnecessarily, I just want assurance they're still listening to their most devoted players and what is fun for them.

 

[TheSeraphim]

It's good to show contempt for your audience. /s

 

[PDX-Trinexx]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficulty is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

We want to make the player lose in ways that encourages them to adapt their strategy and try again, rather than sit there looking at a game over screen feeling like the game screwed them over with mechanics that were incomprehensible or completely out of their control. There's already a variety of ways to crank the difficulty up by artificially boosting the AI or hobbling the player themselves via game rules, but given that the discussion around difficulty persists I think it's safe to say that even the veteran players feel that's not an acceptable solution to the problem. And to be clear, I do consider it a problem.

 

[Truenorth14]

I find myself in general agreement with the mood here.

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficult is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

We want to make the player lose in ways that encourages them to adapt their strategy and try again, rather than sit there looking at a game over screen feeling like the game screwed them over with mechanics that were incomprehensible or completely out of their control. There's already a variety of ways to crank the difficulty up by artificially boosting the AI or hobbling the player themselves via game rules, but given that the discussion around difficulty persists I think it's safe to say that even the veteran players feel that's not an acceptable solution to the problem. And to be clear, I do consider it a problem.

I appreciate the response, and I think most veterans are in agreement that just stat boosts for the AI is no fun. I find myself in agreement with others that it feels like as you get bigger things should get harder, it really feels like the AI does not recognize our expansion. In general I get the feeling there needs to be more powerbrokers in realms and more deeper interactions, especially with unlanded family members and courtiers who don’t seem to do anything outside of some events.

I would suggest, chapter 5, especially if you guys are doing republics. It should have some significant time set aside for fleshing the AI, adding more depth to the liege vassal interactions.

 

[CK2Benchmarks]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficult is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

We want to make the player lose in ways that encourages them to adapt their strategy and try again, rather than sit there looking at a game over screen feeling like the game screwed them over with mechanics that were incomprehensible or completely out of their control. There's already a variety of ways to crank the difficulty up by artificially boosting the AI or hobbling the player themselves via game rules, but given that the discussion around difficulty persists I think it's safe to say that even the veteran players feel that's not an acceptable solution to the problem. And to be clear, I do consider it a problem.

Tbh the reality is that the kind of difficulty you're talking about will never be real difficulty for the kind of players who complain about it. A lot of the systems that provide difficulty in other Paradox games are essentially just wait timers like anti-blobbing coalitions, CB cooldowns, modifier debuffs, and random events. A lot of the difficulty in CK2 and EU4 is outside the realms of player control and that's part of what makes those games hard. So if your development goal is to not scare off new players, then it will never be "difficult" for veterans. You know this, I know this, and even the ones complaining know this. They are fundamentally asking you to change the game's design principles. Like you said, there are already game rules and mods that can make the game as hard as they want, but they don't want to use them for whatever reason, maybe because they don't think it's the "real" game or they're playing a non-official version. Even if you added game rules dialing up negative modifiers, lethal events, or anti-player coalitions, it will never be enough. I still remember when coalitions were added to CK2 people freaked out over the artificial limitations on player expansion, not to mention the Conclave restrictions that people wanted to turn off. If those things were going to be in the game they would be in by now. There will be new complaints about how artificial the difficulty is. It's obvious that CK3 has just gone in a different direction than what some CK2 players were looking for and that's ok. CK2 was always the easiest game of the three flagship PDS titles and that has continued into CK3. It's time to rip the band-aid off and tell it like it is.

 

[Benismann]

The funniest part was them sidelining the question into warfare, for some reason. The question did not involve warfare, it just asked about the game in general.

And for warfare - eu4 has 3 unit types, one of which is basically siege/buff unit that only becomes relevant midgame, linear tech system, yet eu4 warfare can somehow be more interesting because modifiers are just harder to stack, AI more reliably gets the same one as player can, terrain MATTERS, getting -2 dice roll from mountains is SCARY all throughout the game. And commanders have way more depth somehow by the virtue of having 2 damage stats instead of 1.

 

[Benismann]

On contrast the EU5 team wants the game to be really challenging to the players but I guess CK3 devs need to cater to the lowest common denominator which are the Reddit users.

EXCEPT
Even reddit is complaining about those issues!

 

[Anonim97]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficult is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

You know, while we are already discussing the "difficulty situation" of the game, let me add my own two cents to the pile.

Most of the time people say that warfare is too easy in this game - I have no opinion on that, cause I think warfrare in most games is easy, because AI can't match the player and the only way for it to compete is by giving it bonuses or to make it tedious and unfun. And honestly noone wants the second option.

However in my opinion there are two things that make the game too easy:
- modifyers stacking (both stat wise and opinion wise);
- good health and longevity of characters.
And honestly the second issue amplifies the first one a thousand time.

I can start the game as any ruler and after a few years - all my vassals love me. I don't even need to do much - hell, I am willing to test if not interacting with game at all will still result in my vassals loving me.
I can kick my most powerful vassal that holds 70% of my land from the council and pick some absolute random nobody who has bigger stats than him - even if it's a peasant from the other side of the world - and my noble vassal will not do much because he has +100 opinion with me.
My 6 sons are perfectly happy and content with having no titles at all. None of them will conspire against one another or even against me. They are all perfectly content where they are - hell, many of them will ask to join clergy (out of boredom, I guess). And even if they are unhappy, they have no resources - be it material (gold, prestige) or immaterial (events boosting stats, decisions, chances to increase relationships with others) to do anything with it.

Same with children of the vassals I took titles of. They will do nothing to try to regain the titles. Or even if they try - they won't be able to do much, because they hold no power.

How is it going to be fixed - if it gets fixed - I don't know. I can only suggest a few things, that I think might make the game harder without having to redo the stuff from scratch:
- give bonus scheme power to unlanded courtiers. This will make them more dangerous and will allow them to take a part in a game;
- in similar vein - give them some passive income. This should also allow them to do stuff like sending gifts to one another, try to buy favour to kill you or something;
- change the traits gained during the education. Right now you can easily make it so your 3rd sons or your vassal kids will never be ambitious, be chaste etc etc. Maybe by modifying weights or making it that you can only influence only one of the three traits rather than all of them, or by making some traits non-swappable via events or something.
- this one will probably be harder give some relationship tiers - just because I am friend with a vassal, it shouldn't mean I am able to strip all the titles I want from him and he will never get mad at me. Same with the fact that just because I have been rulling for 20 years it shouldn't mean that my ambitious and deceitful brother is happy with me and will never plot against me. Something like "opinion above 30 is possible only for friends and landed vassals, opinion above 50 is only possible for landed vassals on council, friends and vassals you recently gave new land, opinion above 80 is only possible for friends you gave land to" or something to that effect. In theory it would make the game much less static and still allow somehow satisfied vassals to get greedier.

I know you folks have a lot on your plate right now - especially with new expansion pack, but some fundamentals for everyone needs to be looked upon too.

 

[MyLordFellington]

Hear, hear!

 

[Zopyrionis]

When Neo mastered the Matrix, Architect gave him upgraded agents in sequel. When CK3 players mastered the game, Paradox give them quadrillions of new modifiers, that made the game even more easier.

I don't know, maybe I see "fun" definition differently, but for me the fun part is not opposed to the hard part of the game. After hundreds of parties, I barely remember my most powerful character. Why? Because they were so powerful, that "fun" part was destroyed. But I remember the characters that struggled through their road to power. I remember rulers that faced rebellions, plagues, conspiracies, foreign invasions et cetera. Yes, the heirs of these rulers end up overpowered emperors, but the path to that road was memorable.

CK3 never was hard by design, but it was harder before DLC. Back then there was much less CB, characters didn't live so long, prestige and piety was harder to get. But Royal Court changed everything. After that game was invaded by horde of modifiers and this invasion does not end nowadays, nor in the future. I have hopes that this problem will be addressed after modifiers was mentioned in the floor plan, but right know this hopes has almost died.

Many people say that AI is the biggest problem of the game, but I disagree. At the beginning of the game AI was really stupid, but right now it is pretty smart. AI make decisions based on charters traits and rationality, so the genius diligent ruler with 4-tier stewardship will most likely invest in domain, while stupid lunatic character with 1-tier martial can declare war on giant empire that outnumbers his troops. AI is still not perfect, but I can't deny that it evolved from Pithecanthropus to Homo Erectus. But AI doesn't matter, because of modifiers nightmare. He simply can't handle human modifier stacking.

If there was a modifier stacking limit for player only (as a game rule), 90% of current problems would be solved. Character wouldn't live for 100+ years, vassals will not have 100 positive opinion about ruler, that killed their relatives or steal most of their land, and enemy armies wouldn't be wiped by players army in first battle. Imagine if money gifts never give more than 30+ opinion. Or stationed forced never get crazy buffs. Limitation of modifiers stacking will not only make game harder - it will make most of game mechanics simply work. After that player must think about vassal opinion, culture acceptance, battle terrain and many other things. I have no doubts that experienced player will beat game even with modifier stacking limit, but his path to triumph will be much harder, interesting and fun. This will be truly a game about writing dynasty chronicle, because you simply can't achieve your goals with one character like now.

But this is just a fantasy. In reality every feature that makes game harder will be nerfed immediately after superhumans that restore Roman Empire and post screenshot about it in internet whining. Harm Events killed my half-god? Nerfed. Plagues killed all my perfect kids? Nerfed. I get that some people might enjoy this type of gameplay and I don't want to ruin their "fun". And it won't be ruined - just add a game rule that limits modifiers and everyone will be happy.

I think that HRE election shows modifier problems even better than characters that live 100+ years. Every time I starting in HRE I end up being elected. And I am not even trying to achieve its throne - my character simply stuck positive modifiers, while AI characters don't. And game stuck modifiers even if I didn't want. You won a tournament? There is a modifier. Pilgrimage? Modifier. Feast, Hunt or just simply not doing anything and staring at map? Modifier. I will not be surprised, that I may end up as an emperor of China this way after DLC come out. Maybe I will just sit and do nothing like ancient dao philosophers and some rebels will make me an emperor for this virtue.

 

[DawramBashere]

When Neo mastered the Matrix, Architect gave him upgraded agents in sequel. When CK3 players mastered the game, Paradox give them quadrillions of new modifiers, that made the game even more easier.

I don't know, maybe I see "fun" definition differently, but for me the fun part is not opposed to the hard part of the game. After hundreds of parties, I barely remember my most powerful character. Why? Because they were so powerful, that "fun" part was destroyed. But I remember the characters that struggled through their road to power. I remember rulers that faced rebellions, plagues, conspiracies, foreign invasions et cetera. Yes, the heirs of these rulers end up overpowered emperors, but the path to that road was memorable.

CK3 never was hard by design, but it was harder before DLC. Back then there was much less CB, characters didn't live so long, prestige and piety was harder to get. But Royal Court changed everything. After that game was invaded by horde of modifiers and this invasion does not end nowadays, nor in the future. I have hopes that this problem will be addressed after modifiers was mentioned in the floor plan, but right know this hopes has almost died.

Many people say that AI is the biggest problem of the game, but I disagree. At the beginning of the game AI was really stupid, but right now it is pretty smart. AI make decisions based on charters traits and rationality, so the genius diligent ruler with 4-tier stewardship will most likely invest in domain, while stupid lunatic character with 1-tier martial can declare war on giant empire that outnumbers his troops. AI is still not perfect, but I can't deny that it evolved from Pithecanthropus to Homo Erectus. But AI doesn't matter, because of modifiers nightmare. He simply can't handle human modifier stacking.

If there was a modifier stacking limit for player only (as a game rule), 90% of current problems would be solved. Character wouldn't live for 100+ years, vassals will not have 100 positive opinion about ruler, that killed their relatives or steal most of their land, and enemy armies wouldn't be wiped by players army in first battle. Imagine if money gifts never give more than 30+ opinion. Or stationed forced never get crazy buffs. Limitation of modifiers stacking will not only make game harder - it will make most of game mechanics simply work. After that player must think about vassal opinion, culture acceptance, battle terrain and many other things. I have no doubts that experienced player will beat game even with modifier stacking limit, but his path to triumph will be much harder, interesting and fun. This will be truly a game about writing dynasty chronicle, because you simply can't achieve your goals with one character like now.

But this is just a fantasy. In reality every feature that makes game harder will be nerfed immediately after superhumans that restore Roman Empire and post screenshot about it in internet whining. Harm Events killed my half-god? Nerfed. Plagues killed all my perfect kids? Nerfed. I get that some people might enjoy this type of gameplay and I don't want to ruin their "fun". And it won't be ruined - just add a game rule that limits modifiers and everyone will be happy.

I think that HRE election shows modifier problems even better than characters that live 100+ years. Every time I starting in HRE I end up being elected. And I am not even trying to achieve its throne - my character simply stuck positive modifiers, while AI characters don't. And game stuck modifiers even if I didn't want. You won a tournament? There is a modifier. Pilgrimage? Modifier. Feast, Hunt or just simply not doing anything and staring at map? Modifier. I will not be surprised, that I may end up as an emperor of China this way after DLC come out. Maybe I will just sit and do nothing like ancient dao philosophers and some rebels will make me an emperor for this virtue.

This is exactly my biggest problem with the game. I get that adding soft caps for positive opinion—while leaving negative modifiers as they are—might be pretty hard (depends on how it's done in the code), but it would solve a lot of issues. Without it, ridiculous situations like your nemesis having +100 opinion of you aren’t just possible, they’re so common that seeing a rival who actually hates you feels like a miracle. Adding soft caps on skills and opinions is the only way I can see this part of the game being fixed. Then again, I’m no game designer, of course.


As for prestige—after playing a small campaign as an OPM in Africa—I think introducing monthly costs for court positions is a step in the right direction. I actually struggled with this resource at times. The new system works well in that situation, although the cost becomes too cheap once you’re a king or emperor—it really needs to scale better.


More broadly, I feel like prestige would make more sense if you gained it only from actual actions, like hunts, and started losing it monthly when you’re not doing anything. That way, it reflects the idea that prestige comes from doing something prestigious. Gameplay-wise, it would also make activities feel way more important, instead of just being an easy prestige farm when you need it for a war. You’d actually have to do something to get it. In that case, monthly prestige gain could be replaced with a % modifier to prestige gained from events.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficult is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

We want to make the player lose in ways that encourages them to adapt their strategy and try again, rather than sit there looking at a game over screen feeling like the game screwed them over with mechanics that were incomprehensible or completely out of their control. There's already a variety of ways to crank the difficulty up by artificially boosting the AI or hobbling the player themselves via game rules, but given that the discussion around difficulty persists I think it's safe to say that even the veteran players feel that's not an acceptable solution to the problem. And to be clear, I do consider it a problem.

Stellaris solves this by having game mechanics unfold over time but it's easier to do it in that setting, as the lore is literally about expanding from a small start. Another thing they have as an option is scaling difficulty. I agree that just adding buffs and nerfs isn't a great way to do this for CK. I don't know. It's a tough one...

 

[Taerys]

I think this is mostly an AI issue. If the AI was somewhat competent the gane difficulty would substantially increase.

The AI :
- Doesnt make use of the army bonuses
- Doesnt abuse when the player is in a tight spot (after a succesion, when he just built a bunch of buildings, when he is alliance isolated)
- Doesnt make an effort to optimise/educate their heir
- Doesnt make an effort to preserve its realm when chosing a spouse
- Doesnt make an effort to build strong faction networks to challenge the player

And more, these all add up. If there was a "hard" mode where AI would do that properly, aka play like a player would the game would be considerably harder.

 

[MyLordFellington]

I don't see what's the problem with adding coalitions or adding the possibility a band of local, powerful rulers who want to put an end to a local upstart. I don't see that as artificial. It's more bizarre I can make massive empires with no AI checking my progress or getting pissed in terms of opinion.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I was looking at this.

Character - CK3 Wiki

ck3.paradoxwikis.com

Maybe ramping up boldness over time might be enough...

 

[Benismann]

As for prestige—after playing a small campaign as an OPM in Africa—I think introducing monthly costs for court positions is a step in the right direction. I actually struggled with this resource at times.

I think the game in general just needs more COSTS. Court costs are negligible and required court grandeur is usually really low, so even if you make them higher and/or scale differently (imo they should scale with total development or smth instead of just realm size) people will just keep it at required level and be done with it. Make those matter too. MAA could use some scaling cost with era/techs, considering pdx is unlikely to get rid of levies, they should probably scale in cost AND strength with techs too.
And just for the sake of mildly fixing player power level and economy - remove the god damn free money decisions from left stewardship tree, those are sooooo broken.

 

[Zylathas]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

The question as posed in the Q&A suggests that increased difficult is an easy fix that we're just choosing not to do. What I was trying to say is that it's not that straightforward; it's hard to make content that's challenging for veteran players without wiping new players out, but that doesn't mean we're not trying. We just want difficulty that's fun to engage with, and not frustrating.

We want to make the player lose in ways that encourages them to adapt their strategy and try again, rather than sit there looking at a game over screen feeling like the game screwed them over with mechanics that were incomprehensible or completely out of their control. There's already a variety of ways to crank the difficulty up by artificially boosting the AI or hobbling the player themselves via game rules, but given that the discussion around difficulty persists I think it's safe to say that even the veteran players feel that's not an acceptable solution to the problem. And to be clear, I do consider it a problem.

I think that what would help is if we heard what is being done to adress this problem. I follow these forums quite a lot, I read all DD's and all dev replies. Yet I have no clue what is being done about the very low difficulty of the game, besides the fact that it is seen as a problem. I can understand why people find it frustrating, we've been hearing about this for years now and we are still as left in the dark as we were years before. Is there any chance that we could get a dev talk or whatever format is more fitting to discuss this issue and get insights in various solutions to it? I think that would greatly help people feel less frustrated over it.

 

[Silens]

That was... very poor phrasing on my part, and the criticism it's caused is completely justified.

I think what you said was ok, I understood what you tried to say, and I always appreciate directness and honesty.

When someone spends hundreds and thousands of hours playing a game and honing their skills, the point will come at which the game becomes trivial. It is what it is, we can't reset/forget our skills every time we start the game. Humans learn and adapt and surpass any challenge eventually.

It's not unreasonable to say that some people will always adapt and overcome every challenge and find the game (or any game) too easy. Nobody with a sound mind can expect otherwise.

That being said, this topic isn't entirely new, and higher difficulty levels are being demanded for years now. The answer was always that it's not just about giving the AI bonuses, and people generally accepted that answer. So I totally get why people are upset now, because it sounds like you (as in the devs) have given up on resolving it, even if that wasn't the intention behind your words.

Anyway, don't let this discourage you from being honest and direct in the future. It might be tempting to vet future statements more, hide more behind corporate speak... just resist this temptation. Please and thank you.

 

[Zopyrionis]

This is exactly my biggest problem with the game. I get that adding soft caps for positive opinion—while leaving negative modifiers as they are—might be pretty hard (depends on how it's done in the code), but it would solve a lot of issues. Without it, ridiculous situations like your nemesis having +100 opinion of you aren’t just possible, they’re so common that seeing a rival who actually hates you feels like a miracle. Adding soft caps on skills and opinions is the only way I can see this part of the game being fixed. Then again, I’m no game designer, of course.


As for prestige—after playing a small campaign as an OPM in Africa—I think introducing monthly costs for court positions is a step in the right direction. I actually struggled with this resource at times. The new system works well in that situation, although the cost becomes too cheap once you’re a king or emperor—it really needs to scale better.


More broadly, I feel like prestige would make more sense if you gained it only from actual actions, like hunts, and started losing it monthly when you’re not doing anything. That way, it reflects the idea that prestige comes from doing something prestigious. Gameplay-wise, it would also make activities feel way more important, instead of just being an easy prestige farm when you need it for a war. You’d actually have to do something to get it. In that case, monthly prestige gain could be replaced with a % modifier to prestige gained from events.

In my recent game (Paulician Roman Empire) I feel that change too. My piety was infinite (Iconoclasm doctrine gives you max level of piety for destroying 5 artifacts), but prestige was much harder to get. I think that the cost of courtiers should scale not only through time and realm size, but also based on their aptitude. And, in addition to that, every courtier action should have additional cost - I doubt that my medication can buy all his herbs and tinctures for his salary. Also, some courtiers may demand increase in their salary- right now only viziers do something like that.

I think the game in general just needs more COSTS. Court costs are negligible and required court grandeur is usually really low, so even if you make them higher and/or scale differently (imo they should scale with total development or smth instead of just realm size) people will just keep it at required level and be done with it. Make those matter too. MAA could use some scaling cost with era/techs, considering pdx is unlikely to get rid of levies, they should probably scale in cost AND strength with techs too.
And just for the sake of mildly fixing player power level and economy - remove the god damn free money decisions from left stewardship tree, those are sooooo broken.

This is a part of modifiers problems. Why do my artifacts lowering the cost of troops or making some types of vassals pay me more? There are artifacts that give insane bonuses - like skill per level of fame. I think that artifact modifiers should be completely rebalanced.

As for the levies part - developers could simply make it useful like herd. What if our professional troops will be formed from levies + cost money? If we convert levies to professionals with 3 or 2 to 1 ratio (professional soldier and his squires) and generally lower levies size, then we can get a complicated system. Ruler will have a choice - recruit professionals from vassal levies (his own levies simply would be enough) or pay 5 times more for hiring them from abroad. Professionals from vassal levies will be cheap, but not trustworthy, because they will not fight against their liege during rebellions. Professionals from abroad will be expensive, but less dangerous (through they may start a mutiny like mamluks in Egypt).

There is also one big problem, that I encounter in almost every game - infinite gold. There is a game called Knights of Honor (2006) and there was a very simple solution to this problem - inflation. Once your treasury reaches a certain limit - inflation will start eating them. This mechanic is simple and ahistorical (inflation in that time is almost inexistent), but it will solve the problem. Maybe this money sinking can be justified in other way - like corruption or greedy courtiers.

I think this is mostly an AI issue. If the AI was somewhat competent the gane difficulty would substantially increase.

The AI :
- Doesnt make use of the army bonuses
- Doesnt abuse when the player is in a tight spot (after a succesion, when he just built a bunch of buildings, when he is alliance isolated)
- Doesnt make an effort to optimise/educate their heir
- Doesnt make an effort to preserve its realm when chosing a spouse
- Doesnt make an effort to build strong faction networks to challenge the player

And more, these all add up. If there was a "hard" mode where AI would do that properly, aka play like a player would the game would be considerably harder.

While your points are correct, there is a big issue with AI design - players play the game, while AI plays the character. Player think about future generations, while AI make decisions based only on character traits. There are only two AI anomalies who play against their "nature" - conqueror and great khan children. Even craven son of khan will continue his father business. I don't think that developers will shift toward this AI model - this is simply against their philosophy. But even if they make current AI (based on character) a pure genius, it simply can't challenge player - because one day AI character die and his realm will be spited between some craven or lazy children. Those children can't challenge player. But, if player will be limited in modifiers stacking (while AI don't), even current AI model will work (at least in theory).

I recently saw some sort of AI min-maxer - Scandinavian conqueror with Islam faith and clan government. All his professionals were Varangian Veterans or Huscarls (in total nearly 4000 professional troops in 900 - very impressive). This is a lucky coincidence, but imagine how interesting game would become if other characters start this sort of "min-maxing". This conqueror literally choose best troops, culture, religion and government for wars, and if AI was buffed, he may create a right accolade and build right buildings in his domain. This "min-maxing" doesn’t feeling like "min-maxing" for me – AI simply follow its character nature in the best possible way.

 

[Benismann]

And, in addition to that, every courtier action should have additional cost - I doubt that my medication can buy all his herbs and tinctures for his salary.

They actually do, but i dont think that cost scales.

Also, some courtiers may demand increase in their salary- right now only viziers do something like that.

That's a court event, altho there're barely any consequences for not raising their salary

As for other points (except levy -> MAA conversion), I can't just not plug my rebalance mod where i did multiple masses through artifact modifiers, and they probably are still a bit too strong, increased costs of... almost everything that has a cost, reduced income from all buildings and added scaling costs from innovations to things that have costs and made numerous changes and attempts to improve AI without nuking perfomance (altho i did win a lot of perfomance back by simply scaling down army sizes)