This game is fundamentally broken

[m00zesss]

Rather confused by some posts here.

Is CK3 still behind CK2?
-Probably, yes.
Should CK3 be a better game?
-Of course.
Are some areas of the game lacking content?
-Definitely.
Should the game, after several years since release have improved more than it did?
-Absolutely.
Is the game a broken, unplayable pile of trash?
-Cert...wait...No, it actually isn't.

It's not a pile of trash, otherwise we wouldn't be here to try and wake the devs up to fix their game.

There are too many problems, bugs, inconsistencies, broken mechanics, gender related events that make absolute not sense, random stuff that needs fixing, and more are added each DLC. And if i read stuff like 'we fixed a comma/spelling in a popup for an event that almost never fires' that isn't fixing problems in my book, it's just bloating the patch notes.

 

[sreckom92]

The game needs it's numbers sorted. It is a higher priority than adding nomads, republics and even improving warfare. Stacking bonuses upon bonuses upon bonuses is quite easy, while there are not too many mechanics with a bite. That's the main problem with the game - it is too easy. Starting from gene tailoring, then through child trait manipulating, over easy event choices and finally through lifestyle perks - it is incredibly easy to create an overpowered character. Heaven's forbid you create a custom character. You can become an Emperor in a single lifetime.
Once you become an OP character, it doesn't end there. Bonuses from legacies, fame, advisors, court positions, accolades, buildings, artifacts, activities - all combined with your easily-obtainable character stats - it all makes you untouchable and immune to everything the game can throw at you.At the same time, factors that are supposed to limit you, such as factions, diseases, religious authorities, province control, AI and various mana caps all carry virtually no bite.

Features are present in the game. They're simply grossly unbalanced.

 

[EricArthur]

The game needs it's numbers sorted. It is a higher priority than adding nomads, republics and even improving warfare. Stacking bonuses upon bonuses upon bonuses is quite easy, while there are not too many mechanics with a bite. That's the main problem with the game - it is too easy. Starting from gene tailoring, then through child trait manipulating, over easy event choices and finally through lifestyle perks - it is incredibly easy to create an overpowered character. Heaven's forbid you create a custom character. You can become an Emperor in a single lifetime.
Once you become an OP character, it doesn't end there. Bonuses from legacies, fame, advisors, court positions, accolades, buildings, artifacts, activities - all combined with your easily-obtainable character stats - it all makes you untouchable and immune to everything the game can throw at you.At the same time, factors that are supposed to limit you, such as factions, diseases, religious authorities, province control, AI and various mana caps all carry virtually no bite.

Features are present in the game. They're simply grossly unbalanced.

Once again I don't get the downvoting. You're right. I'd love nomads, republics etc. to be added. I am sure they will at some point.

Some people don't seem to understand the meaning of the word fundament. CK3 is not a burning heap of absolute trash. I wouldn't even call it a bad game per se. The fundamental mechanics behind it, however - its main structure - are the problem and the main reason behind this thread. Like you mentioned, stacking bonuses upon bonuses is an issue and so is playing the game the way the tooltips tell you to - even when roleplaying hard as others have mentioned earlier - because the AI seemingly doesn't appear able to read them.

You can add content to your heart's desire - and a lot of it is good - but the essential foundation behind the game has not changed and if it will not change, I consider the entire project a failure.

 

[EricArthur]

It's not a pile of trash, otherwise we wouldn't be here to try and wake the devs up to fix their game.

There are too many problems, bugs, inconsistencies, broken mechanics, gender related events that make absolute not sense, random stuff that needs fixing, and more are added each DLC. And if i read stuff like 'we fixed a comma/spelling in a popup for an event that almost never fires' that isn't fixing problems in my book, it's just bloating the patch notes.

This. If the game were something so utterly broken, beyond repair, we wouldn't even bother.

 

[m00zesss]

In another thread i stumbled on yet another broken thing: negative scheme success chance

You can't go negative on success chance in real life: you either have 0 chance or positive ... but not in PDX's world ... you can start a murder scheme with -200 success chance ... so technically if you would bring in the keys, the target would kill you.

 

[Fenris_SE]

In another thread i stumbled on yet another broken thing: negative scheme success chance

You can't go negative on success chance in real life: you either have 0 chance or positive ... but not in PDX's world ... you can start a murder scheme with -200 success chance ... so technically if you would bring in the keys, the target would kill you.

I don't know that I'd actually call that broken. It is just more of a choice on how the information is presented to the player. In the above example, you have a 0% success chance, and would need to find ways to improve your odds by at least 201 to have a 1% chance.

 

[TheSeraphim]

One has to wonder why the "RPG mechanics" of CK3 quickly mostly amount to Path of Exile/Diablo style stat & modifier stacking, games where you try and get so strong that you can ignore gameplay mechanics. The "ignore gameplay mechanics" rabbit hole is something that CK3 severely suffers from, where mechanics that should force you to make concessions and roleplay managing your realm, quickly stop mattering since you remembered to pay your grandeur tax, wear artifacts and give yourself non-garbage legacies, etc.

 

[Knight of Lemonwood]

Grandeur makes me want to

 

[giorgosth128]

we need to understand that this game was built around both trying to similate history but also to make sure that a player can make any fantasy they want real. so we are in a bit of a block on it. as a roleplayer I want more mechanics to similatecourt politcs or more in depth ways to lose your throne and consipriacies somone else however will find them boring and unfamilier the devs are walking a very thin line becasue of the fantasy philosophy.

 

[Fenris_SE]

we need to understand that this game was built around both trying to similate history but also to make sure that a player can make any fantasy they want real. so we are in a bit of a block on it. as a roleplayer I want more mechanics to similatecourt politcs or more in depth ways to lose your throne and consipriacies somone else however will find them boring and unfamilier the devs are walking a very thin line becasue of the fantasy philosophy.

Oh I agree entirely. I sometimes like playing a casual power fantasy, genetic manipulation, or some other silly ones I've probably forgotten about. But I would also like to be able to have some playthroughs that are a challenge. As it stands, "most" times I take over a neighboring county the challenge is over once that county starts to recover. Right now the only "challenge" is when the RNG decides to give you some arbitrary problem that often makes zero sense. I (and I believe others) are not asking for a game that is difficult for everyone, I would just like the option.

I know most people hate when the AI is allowed to "cheat". But I'd personally be happy with sliders that allowed the AI to cheat by giving discounts to what the AI needs to spend on stuff. And another slider that would set how aggressive an AI can be. There are times when my neighbor hates me, has claims on my land, has a bigger army than mine, no other enemies but me .... and does nothing. And yeah I know, this would only be a band aid fix and not fix some of the other issues, but it would be a start. I play Stellaris a lot and that game has sliders that effectively do the same thing. I hated the idea at first, but almost never even realize the AI is "cheating" anymore.

 

[Voidian]

The game needs it's numbers sorted. It is a higher priority than adding nomads, republics and even improving warfare. Stacking bonuses upon bonuses upon bonuses is quite easy, while there are not too many mechanics with a bite. That's the main problem with the game - it is too easy. Starting from gene tailoring, then through child trait manipulating, over easy event choices and finally through lifestyle perks - it is incredibly easy to create an overpowered character. Heaven's forbid you create a custom character. You can become an Emperor in a single lifetime.
Once you become an OP character, it doesn't end there. Bonuses from legacies, fame, advisors, court positions, accolades, buildings, artifacts, activities - all combined with your easily-obtainable character stats - it all makes you untouchable and immune to everything the game can throw at you.At the same time, factors that are supposed to limit you, such as factions, diseases, religious authorities, province control, AI and various mana caps all carry virtually no bite.

Features are present in the game. They're simply grossly unbalanced.

You're right, and this game's a great example of why this modern hoax that "PvE games need no balance" has always been wrong, PvE games are the ones that need balance the most.

In pvp you can at least expect the other side to abuse the same broken features you're abusing, so matches tend to balance themselves out, in PvE games having poor balance will destroy the experience.

Unless, of course, you're not aiming for a proper game experience and just want to create a dumb meme game like goat or bread simulators.

 

[Mindel]

Once again I don't get the downvoting. You're right. I'd love nomads, republics etc. to be added. I am sure they will at some point.

Some people don't seem to understand the meaning of the word fundament. CK3 is not a burning heap of absolute trash. I wouldn't even call it a bad game per se. The fundamental mechanics behind it, however - its main structure - are the problem and the main reason behind this thread. Like you mentioned, stacking bonuses upon bonuses is an issue and so is playing the game the way the tooltips tell you to - even when roleplaying hard as others have mentioned earlier - because the AI seemingly doesn't appear able to read them.

You can add content to your heart's desire - and a lot of it is good - but the essential foundation behind the game has not changed and if it will not change, I consider the entire project a failure.

Even describing CK3 has having fundamental structural problems isn't quite conveying just how deep the problem is. It is possible for a game to have major structural problems but still retain some hope of fixability. But I think that CK3's design problems are sadly outside of that realm. In short, they are worse than being fundamental in nature. They are fundamentally unfixable.

For instance, I simply see no way to ever endow AI characters with any semblance of coherent behavior when the game

1) has absolutely no mechanism to model an AI character's long-term goals or strategy,
2) instead uses random events as triggers to dictate character behavior,
3) builds 4+ years of DLC content over the premise that characters are nothing but blank slates for event triggers.

Random events can never produce coherent character behavior any more than some very primitive random word generator could produce a coherent story. And game designers who somehow think they can "fix" this problem by tinkering with the random generator to make certain words more likely have such spectacularly poor judgment that I cannot take seriously anything else they say.

At this point, this problem is completely baked in. All DLC events are based on it. Fixing it would entail not just putting a better fundamental structure in place. It would amount to throwing out the majority of the content added in CK3's lifetime, or reworking each and every individual piece so radically that the result would be not so much "fixing CK3" as it is "as cannibalizing the art/text of CK3 to create a new game and calling that CK3". At that point, it would probably be less labor to simply declare that you are making a new CK from scratch and recycling art/text from CK3.

As for whether the game qualifies as being a burning heap of absolute trash. Well, that depends on how you define "a burning heap of absolute trash". I personally couldn't think of a more appropriate definition than a game being fundamentally unfixable.

So why are we here? Well, I am here because I believe the fundamental flaws of CK3 need to be carefully recorded so that future endeavors don't make the same mistakes.

That said, I want a different dev team for CK4. The deepest underlying cause behind the failures of CK3 is not bad structural design. Lurking beneath that is poor human judgement.

 

[peteoj]

1) has absolutely no mechanism to model an AI character's long-term goals or strategy,

You’ve hit on one of the most fundamental issues with CK3, the lack of AI ambition and long-term planning makes the game world feel lifeless and stagnant. The AI's passivity isn't just an occasional annoyance; it undermines the core experience of a medieval simulation. Medieval rulers, even historically poor ones, often had clear ambitions tied to their titles, family legacies, or religious and cultural identities, yet the AI in CK3 frequently fails to reflect this.

The AI's failure to secure de jure lands, focus on succession, or engage in meaningful expansion are glaring problems. It’s particularly frustrating that the AI often seems to conquer for convenience rather than logical or strategic reasons, following a path of least resistance. Byzantium going after the Pontic Steppe or the HRE invading North Africa are classic examples of nonsensical decision-making that erodes immersion.

I proposed a solution a while back in a thread of blending traits, CK2 ambitions, and a EU4 mission-like system for a more thoughtful and realistic Ai. Giving the AI weighted objectives tied to their ruler's traits, realm position, and historical context could drastically improve their behavior. For instance:

• Dynastic Ambitions: AI rulers should prioritize securing their succession, growing their dynasty, and strengthening their legacy. Fertility buffs, alliance-building incentives, and succession-focused events could help them stay on track. So for example the ai might choose the "Secure an heir" ambition tied to realm laws and religion.
• Military/Expansion Goals: AI should focus on logical de jure claims or historical rivals, with bonuses to pursue wars that make strategic sense. Ambitious rulers might seek rapid expansion, while cautious ones focus on consolidating power. For example the ai might choose the "Seize Aquataine and Normandy" if it's the French king playing in 1178.
• Economic or Administrative Goals: Peaceful rulers could focus on stabilizing their realm, improving infrastructure, or managing vassals, rewarding them for choosing governance over conquest. For example a byzantine emperor may select the ambition of "Securing the Imperial coffers" with the goal of reaching a certain amount of monthly income.
• Historic Rivalries and Coalitions: Long-standing feuds or natural antagonism between certain regions or cultures could give AI clear long-term enemies. Coalitions or alliances against strong conquerors would create a more dynamic map and simulate realpolitik more effectively. The ai could have an "humiliate rival style ambition" like martial rulers of France and England or Bulgaria and Byzantium being granted a free/cheap cassus belli when they choose this ambition.

Railroading AI toward goals might not be the most efficient solution but it’s a way to give them focus and simulate ambition. Combined with tweaks to diplomacy, such as rivalries, treaties, or coalition-building, it would breathe life into the game world and make every playthrough feel more dynamic and competitive.

As it stands, the AI often feels like background noise—passive, predictable, and incapable of driving the game forward. Addressing this would not only make the AI more engaging but also create a more vibrant and immersive sandbox.

 

[Ral Rednaxela]

Even describing CK3 has having fundamental structural problems isn't quite conveying just how deep the problem is. It is possible for a game to have major structural problems but still retain some hope of fixability. But I think that CK3's design problems are sadly outside of that realm. In short, they are worse than being fundamental in nature. They are fundamentally unfixable.

For instance, I simply see no way to ever endow AI characters with any semblance of coherent behavior when the game

1) has absolutely no mechanism to model an AI character's long-term goals or strategy,
2) instead uses random events as triggers to dictate character behavior,
3) builds 4+ years of DLC content over the premise that characters are nothing but blank slates for event triggers.

Random events can never produce coherent character behavior any more than some very primitive random word generator could produce a coherent story. And game designers who somehow think they can "fix" this problem by tinkering with the random generator to make certain words more likely have such spectacularly poor judgment that I cannot take seriously anything else they say.

At this point, this problem is completely baked in. All DLC events are based on it. Fixing it would entail not just putting a better fundamental structure in place. It would amount to throwing out the majority of the content added in CK3's lifetime, or reworking each and every individual piece so radically that the result would be not so much "fixing CK3" as it is "as cannibalizing the art/text of CK3 to create a new game and calling that CK3". At that point, it would probably be less labor to simply declare that you are making a new CK from scratch and recycling art/text from CK3.

As for whether the game qualifies as being a burning heap of absolute trash. Well, that depends on how you define "a burning heap of absolute trash". I personally couldn't think of a more appropriate definition than a game being fundamentally unfixable.

So why are we here? Well, I am here because I believe the fundamental flaws of CK3 need to be carefully recorded so that future endeavors don't make the same mistakes.

That said, I want a different dev team for CK4. The deepest underlying cause behind the failures of CK3 is not bad structural design. Lurking beneath that is poor human judgement.

Sadly I completely agree and I think you explained your point very well.

 

[Benismann]

This is too real.

 

[Benismann]

Then maybe relax and let the Game World take care of itself. Just enjoy the world as it changes around you...

Games are INTERACTIVE MEDIUM. If you want to "just watch" there's another medium for that's good for that and it's called CINEMA. Or theater. Or video. Anything but games, because in game you interact with stuff.

 

[Mauer]

So why are we here? Well, I am here because I believe the fundamental flaws of CK3 need to be carefully recorded so that future endeavors don't make the same mistakes.

That said, I want a different dev team for CK4. The deepest underlying cause behind the failures of CK3 is not bad structural design. Lurking beneath that is poor human judgement.

For that, we would have to begin with the premise that these are mistakes and not deliberate choices Paradox made well before the game was even being designed.

Somewhere along the lifetime of CK2 Paradox started sprinkling fantasy elements and that made the game spike in popularity among less strategy-oriented players, making it a huge success. Consequently Paradox started developing CK3 with that focus in mind from the get-go and lo and behold CK3 was a commercial success. Honestly it feels like the hijacked the name Crusader Kings to make a very different type of game, but "Medieval Fantasy Simulator" wouldn't have sold as well or resonated with the fans of the game.

At this point all we can hope is for another completely different company, likely in another country, to take up the mantle of paragon of grand strategy gaming.

 

[Benismann]

Since paradox read this thread, i'll throw my 2 cents.

Countering has to be torn down and reworked to be different. In it's current implementation, even if we ignore that some units are just better, countering encourages big doomstacks of 1 unit type, because it's based on the number of troops. If you have your entire army be 1 unit type then no one less commited than you will counter you to any meaningful degree because they wont have the numbers for that. Im pretty sure the whole system was meant to avoid exactly that - stacking 1 unit type.
Stationing was introduced and it solved that issue on the buildings level, since now you dont have to commit your whole realm to buffing 1 unit. But countering is still working in the other direction, and that's not good.
And while im at warfare - why are terrain bonuses/maluses applied AFTER stationing and modifier bonuses? This just makes them irrelevant past year 1000 and reduces depth. Please make them be affected by

Stewardship is insanely busted and everyone knows it, 2 free money decisions and free money off hooks in the left tree is gamebreaking and should probably be removed all together. And it's also the stat that gives you domain limit! It's insane. The game breaks itself whenever you happen to become a character with stewardship education. Health path in learning is also a bit too universally useful, but idk what can be done about that without just making the health bonuses smaller. There's also no "not evil" tree in intrigue, which means compassionate just honest AI who just happened to be educated into intrigue gets absolutely nothing out of it. Even martial has the middle tree for more peaceful play, intrigue just doesnt.

There're also modifier stacking issues and lots of other ones, but those are my main concerns. If i were to choose 1 i would say fix countering. All the other ones can be fixed with mods, that one cant.

I will however mention that im not unbiased, i have some 1500 hours in the game and im not roleplaying much, im just playing along. I do however think that if the game is positioning itself as an RP game, it should probably encourage RP a more than it does now. Im in no way hating the game, in fact i lead a meme community centered on it in some other place and occasionally make mods for steam workshop.