Paradox should enhance the original content instead of making money through DLC

[121413]

The game has been released for 5 years, but it remains the same as when it first launched: a terrible economic system, a nonexistent diplomacy system, and the worst numerical balance imaginable. Why can players easily crush AI rulers? Because Paradox never listens to suggestions to balance the numbers or improve AI logic. For 5 years, the game's playability still can't match that of *Crusader Kings II* and *Europa Universalis IV*—it's really just because Paradox is lazy! They're too arrogant, and this game is extremely disappointing. Now, the game keeps making money through DLCs, forcing players to rely on mods to restore content that this strategy game should have had in the first place!

 

[PK_AZ]

There's literally people who pays for these DLCs, and there is enough of them for Paradox to pay the bills. That may suggest game is not as bad as you suggest.
As a sidenote, economy and diplomacy are more or less the same as in Ck2. Using these as an argument that CK3 has less playability than CK2 doesn't sound convincing.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Its weird that we're getting house feuds reworked into being a base game mechanic but also some parts will still be locked by friends and foes

 

[Aarkonia]

The game has been released for 5 years, but it remains the same as when it first launched: a terrible economic system, a nonexistent diplomacy system, and the worst numerical balance imaginable. Why can players easily crush AI rulers? Because Paradox never listens to suggestions to balance the numbers or improve AI logic. For 5 years, the game's playability still can't match that of *Crusader Kings II* and *Europa Universalis IV*—it's really just because Paradox is lazy! They're too arrogant, and this game is extremely disappointing. Now, the game keeps making money through DLCs, forcing players to rely on mods to restore content that this strategy game should have had in the first place!

The AI is exactly as it should in it's base Form be, this is the middle ages most rulers didn't focus on the economy, standing armies or century long strategies their ancestor establisht, the only anomaly here is the player being able to strategize across dozens of rulers using modern logic guiding a realm to prosperity across centuries. Adding a option for the AI to use meta-playstyles would also likely result in large realm AIs like byzantine to crush everyone.
Through a setting that strongly increases the weight for the economic archetype of builders and allows the AI to disinherit with less problems should be a thing to increase difficulty
Also Paradox is a company making money is their job and diplomacy is already only used every then and now by the player or do u always have your personal scheme do something?

 

[El-Tapicero]

The AI is exactly as it should in it's base Form be, this is the middle ages most rulers didn't focus on the economy, standing armies or century long strategies their ancestor establisht, the only anomaly here is the player being able to strategize across dozens of rulers using modern logic guiding a realm to prosperity across centuries. Adding a option for the AI to use meta-playstyles would also likely result in large realm AIs like byzantine to crush everyone.
Through a setting that strongly increases the weight for the economic archetype of builders and allows the AI to disinherit with less problems should be a thing to increase difficulty
Also Paradox is a company making money is their job and diplomacy is already only used every then and now by the player or do u always have your personal scheme do something?

Medieval rulers weren´t retards. They were also ambitious, hatching complex plans, deposing and appointing kings...

Please don't excuse the game's poor AI because there's simply no excuse for it.

 

[Aarkonia]

Medieval rulers weren´t retards.

They pretty much were

They were also ambitious, hatching complex plans, deposing and appointing kings...

That's a stereotype, most rulers of whatever land they had were ruling just barely so being deposed or replaced in fast succession not by the skill of the other one but by cheer incompetence and selfishness resulting in extreme widespread Nepotism and corruption and thus family being in positions they are completely incompetent in and not qualified at all and thus causing problems others EASILY took advantage of
There were also thousands of kings and only a fraction was actually deposed through schemes, most died through war, illness or old age or they were deposed not through schemes but cheer force of their vassals because of the kings incompetence or actions

Please don't excuse the game's poor AI because there's simply no excuse for it.

It's still a realistic AI, rulers then didn't study administration, warfare, diplomacy or anything in a scientific sense but by their parents and what could back then be called a teacher, with each of the 2 using methods and systems which have absolutely nothing to do with a scientific/modern approach we players use to administrative, rage war. We also don't adhere to their honor and rules of war, we take what we want and crush whatever opposes through modern administrative and warfare

 

[El-Tapicero]

There was a bit of everything, just like there are all kinds of people. But to think that medieval rulers had no ambitions and that their actions were nothing more than a series of random events is ridiculous from a purely sociological standpoint.


You have examples of regions that prospered and became powerful, just as others declined, complex plans... wars were driven by ambition, and empires rose because of it. CK3 has issues in that regard. The AI acts without planning, relying on random events, and the game is unbalanced.

 

[Aarkonia]

There was a bit of everything, just like there are all kinds of people. But to think that medieval rulers had no ambitions and that their actions were nothing more than a series of random events is ridiculous from a purely sociological standpoint.

It literally is the perfect example of survivor bias: Only the the plans which actually succeeded were documented and also changed by the documenter to further his own opinion
It's also the perfect example of romanticizing: Nearly every movie of the middle ages features some elaborate plan or war, even through the event it's based on is completely different (example: Saladins genius, even through he mostly only took advantage of the crusaders disastrous management of their troops) or its the only event of such that has happend in that decade.
The Holy Roman Empire is also a perfect example: Most land was simply lost because the ruler of it was absolutely broke, having wasted nearly all of his money in prestige and expensive mercenaries while also having single cities being richer than him because he has absolutely no control over taxes, even it's emperor had at some points more of a symbolic role in taxation receiving maybe 2-5% of taxes gathered and having absolutely no control over his vassals
I'm sorry to crush your fantasies about the middle ages, but "elaborate schemes" and such are merely the product of movies and romantics, the majority of time rulers failed because of their own incompetence, need for extravagance/prestige (leading to not much practical income), no administrative strategies thus neglecting the economy/ leaving it to the most local aristocrats to build and further the economy (they instead took the money themselves), copious amounts of Nepotism and Corruption (they instead took the taxes they gathered for themselves or were incompetent to notice this happening), incompetent strategies to keep vassals loyal leading to domain and productive lands being gifted away

 

[Aarkonia]

You have examples of regions that prospered and became powerful, just as others declined, complex plans... wars were driven by ambition, and empires rose because of it. CK3 has issues in that regard. The AI acts without planning, relying on random events, and the game is

These are literally exemptions which DON'T represent the majority of realms and even those (China, Roman/Byzantine Empire) collapsed because of the exact points I mentioned
Those realms that survived the middle ages also didn't because of their "plans" and "ambitions" but because administrative technology was researched and centralization still possible (England, france) while the HRE completely collapsed because of how prevalent my points were and these Innovations thus no longer possible

 

[El-Tapicero]

It's absurd to argue about this.

Most of the details have been lost, but if you look at, for example, Iberia before the Muslim conquest, it was a nest of plots, intrigues, and power struggles. Humans have always been ambitious.

 

[Aarkonia]

Most of the details have been lost, but if you look at, for example, Iberia before the Muslim conquest, it was a nest of plots, intrigues, and power struggles. Humans have always been ambitious.

Yet again: Survivor bias AND hasty generalization: You generalize an entire century by a few dozens recovered stories of which only few can even be classified as having truly happend and even those can not be proven to have happend exactly as written, propaganda was common even back then it was just different than now, no family or dynastie would ever document of how they lost the majority of their land because they didn't have money to hire soldiers because they wasted that on banquets and prestige to "outrank" the rival family while the rival family would document an elaborate plan with which they took control of the rest of their land through an elaborate marriage even through it was just necessity because the other family now barely had any land left while being in giant debt because of hiring mercenaries leading to them being simply forced to marry into the rival family and giving up the last land and in the end family 1 won't document of how their incompetence lost them their realm while family 2 will document of their "amazing and elaborate diplomatic maneuver" to take fam1s last lands (Fam1 was utterly broke and in debt and had no choice)

 

[El-Tapicero]

Considering how little documentation has survived from the Middle Ages, those "a few dozens recovered stories" are extremely valuable and representative. Historians are already responsible for separating fantasy from reality

I’ll say it again: thinking that medieval rulers were generally stupid and ambitionless makes no sense from a purely sociological perspective. You have plenty of examples, like the Duchy of Normandy, which became a very prosperous land under proper administration. You only need to take a closer look at the history of any medieval kingdom to see that people (rulers, nobility) were far more cunning and strategic than the AI in CK3

 

[Aarkonia]

You have plenty of examples, like the Duchy of Normandy, which became a very prosperous land under proper administration.

Yet again an "example" proving absolutely nothing, the settlement of the Normandy was a process lasting from 800-950 and was also not some genius plan but a completely common migration, the treaty of Saint-Cleir-sur-epte was also no elaborate plan but a necessity of the French who's kingdom was completely fragmented with the kings having barely any control over possible troops of their lands and thus were completely unable to remove them by force, LSS: Yet again an example proving MY points of incompetent kings creating these problems and not some genius plan of someone else

 

[El-Tapicero]

Yet again an "example" proving absolutely nothing, the settlement of the Normandy was a process lasting from 800-950 and was also not some genius plan but a completely common migration, the treaty of Saint-Cleir-sur-epte was also no elaborate plan but a necessity of the French who's kingdom was completely fragmented with the kings having barely any control over possible troops of their lands and thus were completely unable to remove them by force, LSS: Yet again an example proving MY points of incompetent kings creating these problems and not some genius plan of someone else

Guy, you have lots of examples of areas that have progressed and become prosperous (and the opposite too).

You also have examples of how difficult it could be to control vassals (due in part to their ambition). Calling CK3's AI accurate is simply ridiculous. Take a video that breaks down the medieval history of any country.

 

[Aarkonia]

Guy, you have lots of examples of areas that have progressed and become prosperous (and the opposite too).

You also have examples of how difficult it could be to control vassals (due in part to their ambition). Calling CK3's AI accurate is simply ridiculous. Take a video that breaks down the medieval history of any country.

By now it's getting ridiculous, I disprove one of ur "examples" after the other and you keep brabling about it onwards, the medieval times were PER DEFINITION a time of STAGNATION, absolutely NO dynastie which held power in it's beginning managed to survive to anywhere near it's end, EVERY empire collapsed, EVERY kingdom it began with collapsed with their successors only keeping the name
The kingdoms that survived also didn't do that because of elaborate schemes but by administration technology being invented/copied
And every collaps that happend also wasn't the result of elaborate scheming but plagues, incompetence and vassals THINKING they are smart but in actuality undermining and dooming their liege and themselves because neither now has the capacity to defend the country, cuz the taxes were embezzlement and then used on pointless prestige and extravagance
In the medieval world you imagine existed the French would've kicked the vikings out of Normandy in a heartbeat, but guess what: The vassals cheap, stupid and planless powerplays fragmented the French and all those nobles who held land in Normandy got evicted by the vikings because their stupidity and cheap powerplay making the king unable to react

 

[El-Tapicero]

You're not actually refuting anything — you're just shifting the burden of proof. It's you who should be proving that people in the Middle Ages were stupid and ambitiousless, not me the opposite.

If you said to any medieval historian that the Middle Ages were a time of stagnation, they'd laugh in your face. Of course, the Middle Ages began with a decline after the fall of the Roman Empire, but from that point on, everything was on the rise

EDIT (I'm not going to write you a huge text explaining every detail, but honestly, just watch any 30–60 minute YouTube video that breaks down the history of any medieval country — Spain or England, for example — and you'll see for yourself that you're wrong about medieval rulers and that they are far from CK3 AI)

 

[Aarkonia]

You're not actually refuting anything — you're just shifting the burden of proof. It's you who should be proving that people in the Middle Ages were stupid and ambitiousless, not me the opposite.

Already did, Byzantine, Karolingian kingdoms, HRE, England, Rome, China,....
Not just did I mention a shit ton of proof I even discredited ur "examples"
And the burden of proof is with u, u demanded a better AI justifying it with them not being ambitious enough to their "real counterpart", which is a statement demanding proof that the AI right now truly is inaccurate

were a time of stagnation, they'd laugh in your face. Of course, the Middle Ages began with a decline after the fall of the Roman Empire, but from that point on, everything was on the rise

It literally wasn't
Every Kindgom and Empire it started with collapsed, technology even degraded even further until the crusaders actually started stealing Arabic/Asien knowledge during the crusades
Best example the Reconquista: As soon as the Christians took over the Muslim regions of Hispania the irrigation systems they had were simply left to degrade and sometimes even outright destroyed on purpose for it being Islamic, the entire advanced agriculture and hygiene through bathhouses was set to zero instead of adapted

just watch any 30–60 minute YouTube video that breaks down the history of any medieval country — Spain or England, for example — and you'll see for yourself that you're wrong about medieval rulers and that they are far from CK3 AI)

That alone tells me that ur entire Normandy point was derived from some video aswell, but guess what: YouTube videos made for an entertaining watch aren't credible nor accurate sources, especially if an entire out of control French kingdom which can't physically defend itself is ignored on purpose to make the video more entertaining and not have it stop after 2min because it can be wrapped up with: The French king had no control over his own army and vassals and thus couldn't do shit against the vikings while the vassals where the vikings landed where torn to pieces because they thought they were smart and "ambitious" in defying their king and kill their possibilities for defence, all while the vikings simply migrated to Normandy not because of some elaborate plan but because the French just couldn't do shit, leading to the last king in that chain of events formally recognizing the vikings as part of them and completely surrendering the region to them

 

[El-Tapicero]

Not just did I mention a shit ton of proof I even discredited ur "examples"

Let me tell you something — you haven’t actually discredited anything, lol. I just stopped replying because the amount of nonsense you were spouting would take several pages to refute, and honestly, I couldn't be more lazy to do that.

• For example, the Duchy of Normandy flourished (as many other areas) thanks to solid administration over multiple generations… but you think you’re discrediting that with some headcanon you made up, lol.
• Or another point, technology advanced massively during the European Middle Ages in all the areas. But you’re out here saying it was a time of stagnation… lol. I literally showed that part to a friend of mine who has a history degree, and he told me not to bother replying to you. I’m not sure if you even realize how ridiculous what you’re saying actually is.

 

[El-Tapicero]

French kingdom which can't physically defend itself is ignored on purpose...

Surprise, this is what happens when a state is in decline or crisis, whether political, economic, or otherwise. Just like when a handful of 'barbarians' were extorting an entire Roman Empire that was much larger.

This pattern where an apparently stronger state is pressured or blackmailed by smaller or seemingly weaker powers, has repeated itself throughout history countless times. It’s not something unique to the Middle Ages or from France

 

[Aarkonia]

For example, the Duchy of Normandy flourished (as many other areas) thanks to solid administration over multiple generations… but you think you’re discrediting that with some headcanon you made up, lol.

Small hint: Calling the natural rehabilitation of a completely devasted Normandy after vikings raids an "outstanding performance" is ludicrous at best, ignoring the norman vikings raiding the rest of France and relocating these riches to normandy till 9th century to further ones point is not just completely cheap it also has nothing to do with "solid administration", ignoring that Normandy already lost its edge in economy in the 12 century to further one's point is also cheap

Or another point, technology advanced massively during the European Middle Ages in all the areas. But you’re out here saying it was a time of stagnation… lol. I literally showed that part to a friend of mine who has a history degree, and he told me not to bother replying to you. I’m not sure if you even realize how ridiculous what you’re saying actually is.

And I showed it my Prof. and he said your friend should give that "degree" back to the vendor if he calls copying islamic, Roman and Asien scriptures "scientific advances"

Surprise, this is what happens when a state is in decline or crisis, whether political, economic, or otherwise. Just like when a handful of 'barbarians' were extorting an entire Roman Empire that was much larger.

Guess what it's called when the king doesn't have the ability to keep his administration in line: INCOMPETENCE
Guess what it's called when vassals weaken the entire realm and are completely disloyal to further their cheap power plays: INCOMPETENCE
Guess what it's called when the Emperor doesn't ensure the administrations workings: INCOMPETENCE
Guess what it's called when republic city states and noble families undermine the emperor and administration to further their cheap powerplays: INCOMPETENCE

At this point it's ridiculous how you try defend ur romanticized fantasy about the medieval times, naming the symptoms and completely ignoring the cause to not have to admit rulers back then we're COMPLETELY stupid and self destructing themselves