This is just framing personal non-enjoyment in the form of a pejorative. I suspect you weren't using phrases like 'maximum appeal,' 'casual players', or 'light and easy' terms you would have used to characterize the game in earlier phases when you were enjoying yourself more.
It's fine if you don't enjoy it- again it is fine if you do not enjoy CK3- but there is an objective element to the objectivity to such a characterization. There's nothing particularly maximum appeal about a medieval map-watching game of niche historical time period interest- there's a reason that WW2-era games like Hearts of Iron are so much more of the gamer market. There is plenty of mechanical complexity in CK3 to enjoy if you enjoy that sort of complexity, given we just had a discussion of how different systems do / do not represent the strategic challenge. Even the general CK player base is not what would be considered the 'casual' player market, given that the franchise is one where players often consider the first dozens / hundred hours the tutorial phase.
And if that's how long it takes for a game to lose it's luster, that's an argument that there was a number of good systems / mechanics / content that kept people interested. People are not exactly adverse to entirely dropping games they're not being engaged with. (See the recent Concord example, where the maximum player retention was only 2 weeks because the game was shut down after only 2 weeks.)
If a player spent 100 hours on the game having a good-enough time, and on hour 101 decided they've had enough, 100 hours of content is still more than most games are ever intended to offer. The mechanics don't magically transform in quality to 'was there ever anything good' just because they grow tired of them, any more than they are bad if they didn't like them from the start. Burnout is not evidence of bad mechanics.
I am not going to ask how long you've played CK3 because that point isn't meant to be about you, but recognizing the framing matters in how to answer a question. Your thread is titled 'Is there a systems/mechanics/content you consider well made?' I am not answering that because I don't think that's your actual question. My perception from your opening ("The more I play ck3 the more shortcomings I see.") and (good faith!) responses is that what you're actually asking for is some sort of validation for you no longer liking the game.
The answer to that is- absolutely. It's fine if you aren't enjoying yourself as much over time. Go play something you might enjoy more- life is short enough to stick with a hobby you don't enjoy anymore.
But that's not a matter of if there was anything well made in the first place, or if it's only enjoyable to 'casual players' who prefer 'light and easy' things made for 'maximum appeal.' That's just the sort of language of trying to rationalize a feeling as a result of someone else's agency (the developers not making a good enough game for you) in a game that's fundamentally about your own agency (your ability / interest / creativity in coming up with ideas to play with).
It's no one's fault if you stop enjoying a complex luxury product made by a Swedesh video game company for a niche audience, even if you consider yourself a fan of complex and niche things. This is true regardless whether some women (or men) on said company's internet forum on the holidays agree with it or not.
(Particularly when the forum's fan-culture is on the hostile / negativity end. If you wanted positive expressions of mechanics people enjoyed, it'd be better to ask on Reddit.)
