Let's be honest: Crusader Kings is a people and relationship management simulator and gameplay and difficulties should be based around this

[ray243]

Unlike most other grand strategy games, where you get to play as a "state" and is in full control of everything in a state, it's much easier to drive the entire population towards a clear goal to beat and defeat other states in the game.

Games from your civilisation games to other PDX games like HOI, Stellaris and so on.

CK3 isn't quite like those. People say it is like SIMs, but that's not true either. Crusader Kings is fundamentally a strategy game about people management. The strategy doesn't or shouldn't come from how well you can build buildings and recruit good soldiers, or stat attributes and bonus for your faction, but it should come first and foremost from how you manage the people in your sphere of influence.

The player is playing as a MANAGER.

It's your office politics 101, or your school-friendship politics in some way or another. You have to balance petty things like jealously, favourability among the people you are managing. You need to show you value and reward those that perform, while at the same time not coming across as playing favouritism to different people.

You need to balance a wide range of interest and agendas of the people under you. You need to convince different vassals to accept differences and stop conflict between vassals at other times. You need to judge who is right from who is wrong, and have your decisions be accepted by most people.


And we know in real life, managing people is hard! Managing a big organisation is even harder. Trying to keep everyone happy is a really difficult task.

CK3 can build its set of challenges and difficulties if it understands what it is at the end of the day. The game is a management simulator.

 

[klopkr]

I don't disagree. Warfare should be a bit more complex than 'my stack and space marine knights are bigger than yours' but even warfare should be fixed using this ethos.

I got a lot of disagrees for it and I think it's an unpopular opinion but the CK3 style of making lower vassal relationships irrelevant and only making direct vassal relationships relevant is one of the sources of all its difficulty problems. By making non-dirrect vassals irrelevant and making them unable to form coalitions against their top liege it makes bigger realms more stable and easier to manage. It's significantly harder to manage many counts as a duke than it is to manage a king or two as an emperor, no matter the amount of territory difference.

If all vassals opinions mattered towards rebelling against various layers of lieges then all their opinions would matter and holding larger realms would become significantly harder as rulers have to juggle an ever ballooning number of vassal opinions. I wouldn't go so far as to make them individually able to join higher factions, but I think their opinions should be visible and if too many vassals of one of your vassals have a bad opinion of you as top liege they could encourage their liege to join a faction against you regardless of that vassal between you's opinion.

IT doesn't have to just be that. But the main problem is specifically that if you put a vassal under another vassal, you easily boost relations with the top vassal and make the other vassal fully irrelevant from then on. I assure you that if Hegemonies are just another tier over Emperor without much more to it that I will be ruling the world in record time with a single globe spanning emperor vassal.

The second problem is alliances. Alliances should be deeply interpersonal affairs. But the current system is basically all in or nothing. If you have 8 kids then you can have 8 alliances, more? more alliances, fewer? fewer alliances. There are some mild mitigating factors, but 2-3 good alliances make you basically invisible.

I would say the problem here is two fold. There should be more alliance options without marriages. Marriages cement alliances, but the current mechanic basically makes popping out kids one of the largest advantages in game. They should be good but not the whole armies of the HRE Byzantines and France good. The second problem relates to warfare being an all in affair meaning all alliances bring all troops to the war (unless the AI is doing it's stuff and wandering from ireland to cathay for no reason as it tends to do). I think the only way to manage this is to seriously rethink the raising troops mechanics. I really like aspect of the Imperator levy system.

In Imperator for those who haven't played the newer patches, levies cost something and are inherently risky. First of all if they die you can lose real pops and therefore economic power and future levies. Secondly, when you raise them, they can't be raised again for a period of time, so letting go of all of them at once or raising all of them at once can be dangerous in the post war period when you let them go or if they're destroyed unnecessarily. Lastly they have a real economic cost to being raised. It costs enough that raising all of them unnecessarily is a dangerous thing. Also as an addendum going into debt in that game has some actually bad events that can really slow you down so that cost is extra noticeable.

I think if the CK3 troops system had such a weight to it and also felt more like a system where you make choices on how many troops and what kinds to raise to fight each war it would significantly improve all aspects of the game. Anything that makes the player stop and say "If I raise every troop to fight this weakling war i'll face real consequences, best to only use just as much as I think I need" would be key. Unfortunately the current system basically makes picking which and how many troops to raise basically a nightmare to do, so instead you're always all in.

 

[ray243]

I don't disagree. Warfare should be a bit more complex than 'my stack and space marine knights are bigger than yours' but even warfare should be fixed using this ethos.

I got a lot of disagrees for it and I think it's an unpopular opinion but the CK3 style of making lower vassal relationships irrelevant and only making direct vassal relationships relevant is one of the sources of all its difficulty problems. By making non-dirrect vassals irrelevant and making them unable to form coalitions against their top liege it makes bigger realms more stable and easier to manage. It's significantly harder to manage many counts as a duke than it is to manage a king or two as an emperor, no matter the amount of territory difference.

If all vassals opinions mattered towards rebelling against various layers of lieges then all their opinions would matter and holding larger realms would become significantly harder as rulers have to juggle an ever ballooning number of vassal opinions. I wouldn't go so far as to make them individually able to join higher factions, but I think their opinions should be visible and if too many vassals of one of your vassals have a bad opinion of you as top liege they could encourage their liege to join a faction against you regardless of that vassal between you's opinion.

IT doesn't have to just be that. But the main problem is specifically that if you put a vassal under another vassal, you easily boost relations with the top vassal and make the other vassal fully irrelevant from then on. I assure you that if Hegemonies are just another tier over Emperor without much more to it that I will be ruling the world in record time with a single globe spanning emperor vassal.

I think the core should be a issue of trust and relationship. As king, you have no idea how many of the counts are actually loyal to you, or obey the realm laws etc. All you know is you have to trust on your dukes that they can manage the counts to be loyal towards you.

The counts could all be disloyal to king, but loyal to duke and hence if duke is loyal to king, they won't rebel. Or they would be disloyal to king and also disloyal to duke, which means the duke have to constantly struggle to impose your authority in the area. Or the count and the dukes can be both disloyal and work together to undermine the king.

The second problem is alliances. Alliances should be deeply interpersonal affairs. But the current system is basically all in or nothing. If you have 8 kids then you can have 8 alliances, more? more alliances, fewer? fewer alliances. There are some mild mitigating factors, but 2-3 good alliances make you basically invisible.

I would say the problem here is two fold. There should be more alliance options without marriages. Marriages cement alliances, but the current mechanic basically makes popping out kids one of the largest advantages in game. They should be good but not the whole armies of the HRE Byzantines and France good. The second problem relates to warfare being an all in affair meaning all alliances bring all troops to the war (unless the AI is doing it's stuff and wandering from ireland to cathay for no reason as it tends to do). I think the only way to manage this is to seriously rethink the raising troops mechanics. I really like aspect of the Imperator levy system.

Alliances needs to be vastly relationship based, than something fixed in stone. Asking for the amount of help, and whether the contribution is enough, or if the ally is having their own problems to deal with should all matter.

In Imperator for those who haven't played the newer patches, levies cost something and are inherently risky. First of all if they die you can lose real pops and therefore economic power and future levies. Secondly, when you raise them, they can't be raised again for a period of time, so letting go of all of them at once or raising all of them at once can be dangerous in the post war period when you let them go or if they're destroyed unnecessarily. Lastly they have a real economic cost to being raised. It costs enough that raising all of them unnecessarily is a dangerous thing. Also as an addendum going into debt in that game has some actually bad events that can really slow you down so that cost is extra noticeable.

I think if the CK3 troops system had such a weight to it and also felt more like a system where you make choices on how many troops and what kinds to raise to fight each war it would significantly improve all aspects of the game. Anything that makes the player stop and say "If I raise every troop to fight this weakling war i'll face real consequences, best to only use just as much as I think I need" would be key. Unfortunately the current system basically makes picking which and how many troops to raise basically a nightmare to do, so instead you're always all in.

Armies, or rather soldiers should have personalities based on how often you keep calling them to foreign wars to help your ally.

 

[Voidian]

Again, none of it matters while the AI is so incompetent at the core of the game.

Yes, you're right, the biggest challenge should be keeping your vassals at bay, having their respect, or fear, having allies, having people covering your back.

But none of this matters while the AI can't do something as basic as build perfect domains all over the world as fast, or faster than the player, because, as you said, it's not "the point of the game", that's the very basic skill we should expect from all AIs all over the world, and every player, we're not dealing with giant combos, we're not dealing with deep mechanics like the effects of the central bank interest rate in your banks, the inflation, or economic growth, and how that would affect your insurance & bank companies (been playing capitalism lab), we're dealing with 20 IQ challenges like: Place the infantry military building in the goddamn domain you'll station all of your heavy infantry, and the AI can't even do that!

So yeah, we can act cute, as if relationships matter, as if I ever had to remember the name or any characters, as if I ever looked at the traits of anyone in my court, ever, but at the end of the day none of it matters in a game when there is no AI, you're just playing by yourself, in a dead world, and if anything happens you can just click "raise armies" anywhere in the map, watch your 2 regiments (out of many) MAA stackwipe any challenges then get back to being bored.

I mean yes, sure, I could pretend the claim system even matters, or I could use any of the 100 ways to ignore the entire system and just go on a conquering rampage, I could pretend plots to kill matter, or I could get 100 dread in a second and ignore them, I could pretend having a rival matter, or I could click to have them killed and wait for a near 100% guaranteed chance it will happen, the game's broken in every way.

What the AI is missing is trivial knowledge, it's not even worth discussing it as an "AI issue", it's too basic for that, it's what gets them to reach the starting line, so the game can then start, they never do make it to the starting like, so there is never a game worthy of being played.

Paradox never made such a sloppy job, well, they did once, 2.0 remake of Stellaris when they changed everything and didn't teach the AI to use any of it, but it was fixed, eventually, and the devs didn't pretend that wasn't an issue over there.

 

[ray243]

Again, none of it matters while the AI is so incompetent at the core of the game.

Yes, you're right, the biggest challenge should be keeping your vassals at bay, having their respect, or fear, having allies, having people covering your back.

But none of this matters while the AI can't do something as basic as build perfect domains all over the world as fast, or faster than the player, because, as you said, it's not "the point of the game", that's the very basic skill we should expect from all AIs all over the world, and every player, we're not dealing with giant combos, we're not dealing with deep mechanics like the effects of the central bank interest rate in your banks, the inflation, or economic growth, and how that would affect your insurance & bank companies (been playing capitalism lab), we're dealing with 20 IQ challenges like: Place the infantry military building in the goddamn domain you'll station all of your heavy infantry, and the AI can't even do that!

So yeah, we can act cute, as if relationships matter, as if I ever had to remember the name or any characters, as if I ever looked at the traits of anyone in my court, ever, but at the end of the day none of it matters in a game when there is no AI, you're just playing by yourself, in a dead world, and if anything happens you can just click "raise armies" anywhere in the map, watch your 2 regiments (out of many) MAA stackwipe any challenges then get back to being bored.

I mean yes, sure, I could pretend the claim system even matters, or I could use any of the 100 ways to ignore the entire system and just go on a conquering rampage, I could pretend plots to kill matter, or I could get 100 dread in a second and ignore them, I could pretend having a rival matter, or I could click to have them killed and wait for a near 100% guaranteed chance it will happen, the game's broken in every way.

What the AI is missing is trivial knowledge, it's not even worth discussing it as an "AI issue", it's too basic for that, it's what gets them to reach the starting line, so the game can then start, they never do make it to the starting like, so there is never a game worthy of being played.

Paradox never made such a sloppy job, well, they did once, 2.0 remake of Stellaris when they changed everything and didn't teach the AI to use any of it, but it was fixed, eventually, and the devs didn't pretend that wasn't an issue over there.

A good way is to look at how rivals lime 3 Kingdoms Total War managed to craft and AI that makes an AI feel like you're dealing with real personalities that offers challenges.

You have AI smart enough to pretend to be your friend and the betray you at your weak point.

The issue with challenge right now is more due to a player being able to snowball in stats, as they created this dynasty with incredible legacy that all AI characters becomes automatically loyal to the player character anyway. In real life, that's not how things work.

A family can earn legacy but many people can still think of the people in the family as hated or unlikeable people.

 

[Benismann]

I dont disagree, but as long as your military can steamroll everyone if you just dont recruit light infantry (optional), station MAAs and build buildings for them i dont think any amount of management challenges will fix the game being too easy. Rn in vanilla you can just tyran your way through everything and BTFO every attempt of your vassals to stop you (if there are attempts, even), and this wont change until military is changed in some way.

 

[CatilinamSum]

Again, none of it matters while the AI is so incompetent at the core of the game.

Yes, you're right, the biggest challenge should be keeping your vassals at bay, having their respect, or fear, having allies, having people covering your back.

But none of this matters while the AI can't do something as basic as build perfect domains all over the world as fast, or faster than the player, because, as you said, it's not "the point of the game", that's the very basic skill we should expect from all AIs all over the world, and every player, we're not dealing with giant combos, we're not dealing with deep mechanics like the effects of the central bank interest rate in your banks, the inflation, or economic growth, and how that would affect your insurance & bank companies (been playing capitalism lab), we're dealing with 20 IQ challenges like: Place the infantry military building in the goddamn domain you'll station all of your heavy infantry, and the AI can't even do that!

So yeah, we can act cute, as if relationships matter, as if I ever had to remember the name or any characters, as if I ever looked at the traits of anyone in my court, ever, but at the end of the day none of it matters in a game when there is no AI, you're just playing by yourself, in a dead world, and if anything happens you can just click "raise armies" anywhere in the map, watch your 2 regiments (out of many) MAA stackwipe any challenges then get back to being bored.

I mean yes, sure, I could pretend the claim system even matters, or I could use any of the 100 ways to ignore the entire system and just go on a conquering rampage, I could pretend plots to kill matter, or I could get 100 dread in a second and ignore them, I could pretend having a rival matter, or I could click to have them killed and wait for a near 100% guaranteed chance it will happen, the game's broken in every way.

What the AI is missing is trivial knowledge, it's not even worth discussing it as an "AI issue", it's too basic for that, it's what gets them to reach the starting line, so the game can then start, they never do make it to the starting like, so there is never a game worthy of being played.

Paradox never made such a sloppy job, well, they did once, 2.0 remake of Stellaris when they changed everything and didn't teach the AI to use any of it, but it was fixed, eventually, and the devs didn't pretend that wasn't an issue over there.

I think this is it. The game’s actual systems are (mostly) fine. The problem is that the AI just… doesn’t use them, almost at all.

The AI ought to act more like a player in every aspect. It should be brutally cunning, aggressive when it needs to be, and have the same tendency to “roleplay” around borders and cultural/religious setups that make sense instead of mindlessly blobbing for no reason.

Right now the AI does many things purely because it can, yet inexplicably avoids taking other actions even when they would be the next logical step.

A competent, capable ruler with the stats to back it up should be challenging to deal with, and not just revoke counties at random and conquer duchies in the steppe. Said ruler should be crafting a perfect demesne, securing the succession of a worthy heir (something even conquerors don’t do), investing in their lands to increase their income, assassinating key rivals, creating powerful accolades and recruiting optimal MAA… the list can really go on.

If a lot of this has to be locked behind game rules for newer players, so be it. I totally understand and respect the need for the game to be accessible. But the answer in the Q&A did rankle me a bit.

CK3 is a great game. It’s also a very easy game for anyone with modest grand strategy experience because there are just so many tools available that we know how to use and the AI doesn’t.

 

[ray243]

I dont disagree, but as long as your military can steamroll everyone if you just dont recruit light infantry (optional), station MAAs and build buildings for them i dont think any amount of management challenges will fix the game being too easy. Rn in vanilla you can just tyran your way through everything and BTFO every attempt of your vassals to stop you (if there are attempts, even), and this wont change until military is changed in some way.

I think a way to reduce steamrolling is to make army management actually a thing. By this I don't mean army management as in just increasing buffs for your MAA and increasing stats. I mean having to organise the army by making sure the commanders of the units are actually not corrupt, training their soldiers well and so on.

 

[ray243]

I think this is it. The game’s actual systems are (mostly) fine. The problem is that the AI just… doesn’t use them, almost at all.

The AI ought to act more like a player in every aspect. It should be brutally cunning, aggressive when it needs to be, and have the same tendency to “roleplay” around borders and cultural/religious setups that make sense instead of mindlessly blobbing for no reason.

Right now the AI does many things purely because it can, yet inexplicably avoids taking other actions even when they would be the next logical step.

A competent, capable ruler with the stats to back it up should be challenging to deal with, and not just revoke counties at random and conquer duchies in the steppe. Said ruler should be crafting a perfect demesne, securing the succession of a worthy heir (something even conquerors don’t do), investing in their lands to increase their income, assassinating key rivals, creating powerful accolades and recruiting optimal MAA… the list can really go on.

If a lot of this has to be locked behind game rules for newer players, so be it. I totally understand and respect the need for the game to be accessible. But the answer in the Q&A did rankle me a bit.

CK3 is a great game. It’s also a very easy game for anyone with modest grand strategy experience because there are just so many tools available that we know how to use and the AI doesn’t.

I don't think it's about taking the most logical step as much as making sure the AI is consistent with its given personality. 3 Kingdom Total War showed how having an AI that reflects the personality of the different characters can actually increase difficulty, and also make the gameplay more meaningful and fun.

 

[Benismann]

I think a way to reduce steamrolling is to make army management actually a thing. By this I don't mean army management as in just increasing buffs for your MAA and increasing stats. I mean having to organise the army by making sure the commanders of the units are actually not corrupt, training their soldiers well and so on.

Sure, that still involves changing military system, and without changing it it wont work

 

[ray243]

Sure, that still involves changing military system, and without changing it it wont work

Exactly. Everything has to be in line with the core principle of CK3, and things should scale in difficulty according to the game philosophy of CK3.

 

[Enku7071]

Methinks that the CK3 team is adding every bit of extremely impactful mechanics in the game while keeping the AI at bare minimum, so that they can basically re-write the AI into understanding the game. If it is the case, then it'll happen few years later, so ...yea.

Then again, PDX games are notorious for having a shit AI and the game becomes ten times more fun when there is actual people playing around.