The gameplay focus on stacking stats and modifiers runs counter to the core design philosophy of Crusader Kings 3

[ray243]

The core design of these games by PDX is to fulfill players' power fantasy, and I am quite fond of unbound growth of my might as I play for hundreds of years in the game. If you don't want to become too powerful, you can always choose to restart the game and play shorter campaigns, which is a valid playstyle and well accommodated, by the likes of Haesteinn. You always have additional challenges, like partition succession laws. For me, I quite enjoy the reward of having endured those shitty succession laws, enacted superior ones, and snowball into the greatest entity on the map.

Obviously there are a few modifiers that should have a cap, such as the life expectancy from multiple legendary shrines. But this is a matter of finetuning for the sake of balance.

I think after a player conquered a huge empire the challenge can shift from conquering the rest of the map to keeping your dynasty in power of a huge empire for as long as possible till game end date.

This way a player's power fantasy is fulfilled, and they can find new challenges to play.

 

[Voidian]

The core design of these games by PDX is to fulfill players' power fantasy, and I am quite fond of unbound growth of my might as I play for hundreds of years in the game. If you don't want to become too powerful, you can always choose to restart the game and play shorter campaigns, which is a valid playstyle and well accommodated, by the likes of Haesteinn. You always have additional challenges, like partition succession laws. For me, I quite enjoy the reward of having endured those shitty succession laws, enacted superior ones, and snowball into the greatest entity on the map.

Obviously there are a few modifiers that should have a cap, such as the life expectancy from multiple legendary shrines. But this is a matter of finetuning for the sake of balance.

Having the game become boring and unplayable after a couple of generations and always being forced to restart (or quit) isn't a "playstyle".

If anything, having a properly designed game with good balance, and then letting people cheat to become too powerful is the correct answer.

The base gameplay should never feel this sloppy.

 

[Benismann]

The core design of these games by PDX is to fulfill players' power fantasy, and I am quite fond of unbound growth of my might as I play for hundreds of years in the game. If you don't want to become too powerful, you can always choose to restart the game and play shorter campaigns, which is a valid playstyle and well accommodated, by the likes of Haesteinn. You always have additional challenges, like partition succession laws. For me, I quite enjoy the reward of having endured those shitty succession laws, enacted superior ones, and snowball into the greatest entity on the map.

Obviously there are a few modifiers that should have a cap, such as the life expectancy from multiple legendary shrines. But this is a matter of finetuning for the sake of balance.

Power fantasy works best when you actually work for it. This is why people dont play big countries as much, in ANY paradox game, because climbing from the bottom is satisfying because you put in the effort and work to become this epic massive empire or a demigod character. In CK3, however, all you need to do is to just barely aknowledge mechanics of the game to become insanely busted, and it just gets further reinforced with DLCs. And that gets stale FAST.

 

[kgptzac]

It is regrettable that some of y'all can't enjoy the game for what it is. I just finished my last 1.15 game where I spent last 200 years having fun despite nobody could challenge me after 100 years, and I was taking things slow. The OP raised some legitimate design questions, which if changed, people who have been enjoying CK3 for what it currently is likely no longer can. Good luck for you guys getting what you want in CK4, since I am not here to entertain hypotheticals that seemingly makes the current game worse.

 

[Voidian]

It is regrettable that some of y'all can't enjoy the game for what it is. I just finished my last 1.15 game where I spent last 200 years having fun despite nobody could challenge me after 100 years, and I was taking things slow. The OP raised some legitimate design questions, which if changed, people who have been enjoying CK3 for what it currently is likely no longer can. Good luck for you guys getting what you want in CK4, since I am not here to entertain hypotheticals that seemingly makes the current game worse.

So, why didn't you feel like finishing that run?

 

[naq29]

I spent last 200 years having fun despite nobody could challenge me after 100 years

So some people do have fun staring at a map all day...

 

[Duchy-2]

As for people who talk about realism, go walk outside for your realism. It's right there.

I might be in the minority here but I don't become the duke of a medieval European fiefdom upon walking outside...

CK3 should be a game about building up your dynasty and realm over generations.

True, but the way it goes about it is important. IRL, certain dynasties didn't become prominent and widespread because one of their descendants chose to write a book on warfare which gave them a +20% heavy infantry fighting ability... Building up your dynasty should mean extending your influence within an empire, occupying important positions, acquiring lands, making strategic marriages, passing laws, and trying to ensure you keep the gains you made. It's very shortsighted to conclude "x makes you stronger, becoming stronger is part of the game, therefore x is good".

 

[ray243]

I might be in the minority here but I don't become the duke of a medieval European fiefdom upon walking outside...


True, but the way it goes about it is important. IRL, certain dynasties didn't become prominent and widespread because one of their descendants chose to write a book on warfare which gave them a +20% heavy infantry fighting ability... Building up your dynasty should mean extending your influence within an empire, occupying important positions, acquiring lands, making strategic marriages, passing laws, and trying to ensure you keep the gains you made. It's very shortsighted to conclude "x makes you stronger, becoming stronger is part of the game, therefore x is good".

It's really not that fun when your player controlled dynasty becomes a dynasty of genetic supermen while other AI dynasties are just... Average and common?

Not to mention you rarely have cadet branches warring against each other to claim their rights if the main branch died out.

 

[Alphonce]

Yep This is something that is incomprehensible to me. No limits in modifiers or conséquent debuff, no reel choices, therefore, each game is played the same way and in a few hours you wake up like Neo in Matrix