Is paradox really telling us all to quit the game?

[Benismann]

In theory, a general that you appoint that keep winning battles should develop a good reputation,

Yeah that would require some semi-permanent appointment of commanders too, coz currently armies raise with whoever and i usually dont even know who commands them even when i myself choose a general... All i know is that they have organizer and flat terrain expert

 

[Metz]

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.

One thing that could help make the game harder yet not affect newer players is if there were some sort of infamy/AE modifier for characters that expand too much too fast. Some sort of calculation for example if you increase your realm size by 50% within 10 years and by 100% within 5 years then neighboring rulers get a relations penalty against you as well as a CB discount.

Another thing would be to have alliances be more difficult to get. If marriages could have more bartering to them such as defensive alliances, regular alliances, dowry, bride price, gifting a title, granting a vassal (if marrying within your realm), etc. A UI for marriage similar to the feudal contract UI where you can give/take things. A full alliance should be harder to get. Marriage should perhaps just be a sort of non aggression pact by default.

Maybe different unit types could have different movement speeds to add a more strategic approach to war. A more controversial idea would be to give armies a movement penalty if they move too much within a certain amount of time so as to avoid chasing matches.

 

[Benismann]

Maybe different unit types could have different movement speeds to add a more strategic approach to war. A more controversial idea would be to give armies a movement penalty if they move too much within a certain amount of time so as to avoid chasing matches.

Except it would make sense for armies to move at the slowest unit's speed, which probably is levies/siege equipment. And also that's just another mechanic AI will never be able to use and the player will abuse to get an advantage, we have enough of those already.

 

[ray243]

It would be an funny and interesting situation for the player if a system like this were implemented. Like you'd actually be slightly afraid if one of your Armies stack wipes and enemy army in a miraculous battle because it sows the seed of your next civil war. Or getting an opportunity to climb if you're the general leading the army, just pull one of these:

It can also make a player more wary of going on a conquest spree. Roman emeprors monopolise the celebration of victory triumph for a reason.

It's an idea that would work well for CK3 as well.

 

[Torredebelem]

It can also make a player more wary of going on a conquest spree. Roman emeprors monopolise the celebration of victory triumph for a reason.

It's an idea that would work well for CK3 as well.

Tha mod Interactive Commanders does just that. One of the mods in my mod list, of course!

 

[ray243]

Tha mod Interactive Commanders does just that. One of the mods in my mod list, of course!

Now it will be great if PDX can officially tie this to MAA as well.

 

[EmperorDweeb]

Tha mod Interactive Commanders does just that. One of the mods in my mod list, of course!

I wish they could just hire the modders, or pay them to implement this and interactive vassals into the base game.

 

[ray243]

I wish they could just hire the modders, or pay them to implement this and interactive vassals into the base game.

They do implement mechanics and ideas from modders from time to time. Even have modders created costumes and building packs now.

The main issue is more making sure mods features are actually supported long term and not having any bugs or stuff that breaks with new patches.

 

[Benismann]

I wish they could just hire the modders, or pay them to implement this and interactive vassals into the base game.

Oh hell nah, not MIB. I dont want every war to be a world war 0

They do implement mechanics and ideas from modders from time to time. Even have modders created costumes and building packs now.

The main issue is more making sure mods features are actually supported long term and not having any bugs or stuff that breaks with new patches.

As if paradoxes own stuff doesnt break all the time

 

[wthree]

As if paradoxes own stuff doesnt break all the time

Exactly. Never forget CK2 has a pretty major bug that they never bothered to fix.

 

[ENFP]

Sure. But given they've said there's no AI magic wand that will fix their behaviour, then, if that's true, there are part-way solutions like I've mentioned.

The examples you gave of real challenges are only a challenge for the first 10-20 years of the game. The game is serviceably difficult enough at the Count level, not above. That's the issue. It's always been the issue.

(And even then you just need to get a 2-3 kids, list potential alliances by power, and boom you have won.)

I hate hate hate how you can easily get alliances like this and essentially become invincible. The maintenance patch did help with this somewhat (the -50 penalty while at war was a godsend nerf) but it still skews too much towards being easy.

 

[ENFP]

I still don't understand why why can't just start out by having a patch that introduces difficulty settings which gives the AI some challenging modifiers or gives penalties to the player. It's not a permanent solution, but it would at least help. Not even the most casual of players are going to complain if you just make this stuff optional. Even when the AI improvements the devs say they would rather do get implemented, what's the harm in having some difficulty settings on top of that? We already have an easy and normal mode. We saw that insane post a few weeks back where 3 knights killed an army of thousands, clearly modifier stacking is out of control for the player. Why do we not have an immediate response to such a blatant, insane exploit like that? How truly hard would a sanity-lock on modifier stacking be to implement for things like knight-effectiveness, vassal opinion, etc? People have been talking about how insanely busted MAAs are vs levies for YEARS. Why have we not seen a single nerf to MAAs or a buff to levies? We desperately, desperately need some monthly or even semi-annual balance discussions and updates that would allow multitude of people passionate about the game and its difficulty to beta-test some changes. I think if we had semi-regular direct developer commentary on balancing WITH concrete, community tested changes it would go lightyears towards making people more optimistic about the game in general.

 

[TripleAgent]

Not even the most casual of players are going to complain if you just make this stuff optional. Even when the AI improvements the devs say they would rather do get implemented, what's the harm in having some difficulty settings on top of that? We already have an easy and normal mode.

Given how the casuals threw a fit when harm events were introduced and forced the devs to neuter it (even though it was an optional toggle in the first place!) I'm not so sure about that.

 

[ENFP]

Given how the casuals threw a fit when harm events were introduced and forced the devs to neuter it (even though it was an optional toggle in the first place!) I'm not so sure about that.

Were harm events completely off by default when they were released? I don't remember that being the case, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Benismann]

Were harm events completely off by default when they were released? I don't remember that being the case, but I could be mistaken.

They were not.
Paradox did, however, nuke them in addition to turning them off by default. In fact, it's not "turned off by default" it's turned to "AI ONLY" by default, so it just screws the AI more, which, now thinking about it, is even more sad, omg, why!

 

[ENFP]

They were not.

Yeah, I thought I had remembered correctly the uproar by the casual players was because they were ON by default (never mind that they had a cooldown of 50 years per character...)

I fully acknowledge that increases in difficulty have the danger of alienating both the casual fanbase and the ''I conquered the world in 5 years with an inbred eunuch'' crowd--which is exactly why I think it's the perfect solution to just lock most of this stuff behind game rules. Do sanity checks for the entire game by default (I dont think even the casual thinks 3 knights should kill entire armies) and then put the more challenging changes behind game rules for us roleplayers who really want to feel the caprice of the Middle Ages.

 

[vandevere]

Agreed. That is what the Game Rules are supposed to be for: to adjust difficulty either upward or downward. That's also why the Devs need to really open up the Game Rules, make them wider, more expansive...

 

[EricArthur]

Been there, done that...

They refuse to address it clearly, having had so many opportunities to do so at this point.