Like the ones who never post but downvote every single post I write?
- 3
- 2
-
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.
Mr.Q is probably an urban legend at this point.Like the ones who never post but downvote every single post I write?
btw that distinction was added in 1.15, and we got hard/very hard in 1.16.2.3, but that's about it for anything difficulty related.
- 1
So at least they did that?
Sorry, haven't played for months, so basically I missed anything from Roads to powers (which I couldn't play back then, so only know it from the forum and via YT videos) until now.
Given that CK III came out around August/September of 2020 (I just realized I mixed up something, as I thought ck III was from 2019), it took them almost 5 years to give players something that should had been in the game right from the start!
It's not the old discussion about what content from the DLCs should had been in the game from the start. But seriously, a distinction between AI and player in the game rules and a hrd/very hard setting are basic things. Especially the difficulty settings, as games back in the 90's had this already...
That's the main criticism a lot of us have. It's not that they're not adding the right stuff at the right time, or that CK2 had this so the current iteration should have it at launch, but that they seem to have skipped a lot of foundational things.
- 4
- 3
- 1
a bit more than that in fact, it took them saying what started this thread and receiving this backlash for it to finally at least prototype hard/very hard difficulties at all (Trinexx himself said somewhere on official discord that this amount of backlash allowed him to push for it harder internally for it to be added). Granted, options for AI only realm stability got added earlier than that in 1.15, but they still only got added in this year...
- 1
It implies female players play ck3 specifically for the easy difficulty rather than the same reasons male players play it for. I mean I get some games obviously have heavier female ratio than others but is that because women prefer easier games ie they're worse at video gaming? I don't really think so. It's generally more about the genre.
- 3
- 2
I'm not saying that female players play games for easy difficulties, but I am saying that, generally, women play games for different reasons than men; and that more complex mechanics and focus on strategy in ck3 would in general bounce off the female audience.
- 4
- 3
- 3
I don't fully agree with this but I do see a large amount of tweets and tik toks of mostly women who talk about ck3 like it's a life simulator and dub it "medieval sims" which may be indicative of something but I don't know.
- 4
- 1
Whoever linked to that hilarious 1.5 review... my biggest thanks!
It's three years and I forgot about that thread - until someone reacted to a post in there from me recently!
Man, haven't laughed so hard in a while!
That thread is gold!!!
It's three years and I forgot about that thread - until someone reacted to a post in there from me recently!
Man, haven't laughed so hard in a while!
That thread is gold!!!
- 3
You said paradox are proud of the playerbase brought in by the current difficulty, especially the female playerbase. That's saying there's more women due to the easy difficulty. You didn't say anything about mechanics.
- 2
Well, first of all, to be pedantic, that wasn't me. Second, I agree with that exact statement. There's a difference between saying that the female audience plays for the easy difficulty, and that there's a considerable female audience because of the easy difficulty; however slight that difference might seem. I assert that the easy difficulty and less mechanical depth allows one to focus on aspects of the game that female players tend to prefer, as Peteoj remarked seeing the game being discussed in female circles: the 'sims-esque' and life-simulator stuff. Less playing as a feudal lord and more as a 'family man'.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
What is this referring to? I play a lot of Victoria 3 and have no idea what you're referring to.
- 1
That is so excessively pedantic I’m kind of impressed. I’d hate to know his rage when he learns the Boer Republics exist at game start about 20 years too early lol
“Trade broken: I sleep
Map slightly wrong: it’s an abomination!“
Jk jk
Last edited:
- 2
Maybe not him but I'm happy to let you know it ticks me off!
- 2
So, it ticks me off (far) more then broken trade because
- I live nearby there, so seeing this goes against everything I know about my home region
- It destroed legit plays as a north german minor, as north germans are now divided by Prussia
- It shows how flawed military still is in Vicky 3 and demonstrates that the AI is dogshit at it when it needs a landbridge so AI-Prussia has more chances to 'historical form Germany'
If I recall correctly, the last reason was why it got implemented and says a lot about what the AI can and especially what the AI is shit at.
And I hate pdox approach putting a 'bandaid' over nearly everything, as nothing else has happened here.
- 5
I did not realize they made this change (I haven't played vanilla in quite a while, and all the screenshots I looked up when writing my initial reply were from launch and I was too lazy to actually boot up the game, that's my bad). Yeah I can definitely see that being frustrating, that's such an eyesore, I do not like that change as someone who cares a lot about geography myself.
And yeah definitely agree with the bandaid you mention, seems to be a common trend and one of their bigger sins in pretty much all Paradox games, and so often comes back to bite them later. Victoria 3 at least has reworked some earlier bandaids and don't seem to be scared of reworking previous things, unlike CK3 or Hoi4, though when it comes to mapping/geography specifically Victoria 3's updates have been glacial since before launch (very jealous of EU5 there). At least they do proper mechanics reworks, to bring it back around to the topic of this thread, unlike CK3 which is just adding things on top a la EU4 - I'd still take Victoria 3's approach to CK3's there any day of the week. Victoria 3 I'd at this point is pretty much a decent difficulty level (not that Victoria 3 doesn't have a ton of room for improvement) that I think CK3 should strive for - unless you do some proper cheeses that go beyond the main game mechanics, you'll still find yourself running up against obstacles until the end of the game unless you play as one of the most powerful nations from the start
- 4
It's fine already.
My statement was in that rather 'rant post'.
To keep it short about Vicky 3:
My home region is actually in the small state of Nassau in Vicky 3. Playing as any north german minor, of course it would be your goal to 'split' Prussia by mopping up the other states and going free from their market (now also powerbloc? Haven't played it in a while).
Not only about geography, but splitting those minors, makes it so difficult to play them... I don't mind forming Germany as a minor not in 1871 but for example 1891. I still have something from the game and it never felt 'too cheesy/too gamey'. But now? Especially as you need to be a major nation to become a unification candidate, you would need to conquer territorry outside the north german culture group - and how culture works and incorporation, this sets you back far longer. Or forces you to only play tall and have no other option without cheese.
And the 'landbridge' is testamony to the shitty warfare AI. I don't watch too many YT vids about Vicky 3, but they all show that many different naval invasions are still the best way to overpower the AI. So this landbridge is nothing more as a bandaid - and that since 8 months now? Even a year? And while the dev team is eager to fix Vicky 3, warfare hasn't changed 'fundamentally'. They may have addressed a lot in warfare, in fact so many that it 'looks like' they really overhauled it. But looking beneath reavels the still shitty state the warfare AI is in...
To now go back to CK 3:
CK 3 doesn't even has many 'bandaids'. Best example should be crusades. They are still in an abysmal state!
While I sometimes advocate not to 'overdue it' if that gets ever revamped, I aknowledge the need for a revamp. I pointed out, if I as a nordic Asatru ruler conquer a single kingdom in middle europe and afterwards get crushed by a crusade, thats my fault for not having a 'big powerbase'. But if I reform Asatru, conquer for example all of the Empire of Francia by the year 1000 and a crusade by 1200 where I had 200 years to built up can then easily crush me, that would be a case of 'they overdid it with buffing crusades'.
All my over 4.000 hours have shown me that (far) better pathfinding for AI could solve a lot. Cause it seems the AI can't handle pathfinding through and/or around bigger realms. A crusade called against me when I already had the Byzantine Empire as power base and was already conquering surrounding stuff, targeted Jerusalem. When the crusade started and while I was awaiting them in the holy land... the first crusaders embarked in greece!!! I didn't bother, cause no warscore for them there... but seriously, them siegeing 2 or 3 countries in greece first, before sailing to the holy land... yeah, nobody can explain that to me.
And while that was over 3 years ago, nothing changed. Last year I had my "Normannia run": Reforming Asatru and forming the Kingdom of Norway, building up and then going for Normandy and getting the norman culture, which is thankfully not hidden behind Royal Court DLC. Did it with a holy war for all of West Francia! Turned feudal by giving away all of Norway and digged in. I had over half of the Empire of Francia when the first crusade against me rolled in... or rather 'dripped in'? The AI was unsure how to handle my overall realm while aiming for my heartlands, the Kingdom of West Francia... it is one thing using advantages, but the pityful crusading armies? It's more like 'putting them out of their misery'!
And that is only one single aspect in CK 3 which persists since release and never changed fundamentally.
I don't even know the video mentioned in the beginning of this thread.
I didn't be active for that so called survey mentioned in here.
But just by reading the usual threads (not even new ones!), I can tell that CK 3 isn't on any course to change fundamentally.
Which would be the only way to change ck 3 into something halfway resembling useful on its own, without the need for mods.
Mods and my "Incest-Weeb-Playstyle" are my reason for those highly played hours of game time.
Nothing pdox did with CK 3 ever inclined me to finally buy a DLC for this game.
Sidenote:
I'm that crazy guy who exclusively plays 867 start date and brings all his empires ALWAYS to the 'finish line' in 1453!
I'm beyond crazy...
PS:
My Normannia end screens
- 2
- 1